RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- To: "'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Alan Greenberg'" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- From: "Michael Young" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:49:22 -0400
Speaking personally as well, your response was an accurate reflection of
what I understood the group had agreed on.
From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Sent: September-21-11 1:41 PM
To: Alan Greenberg
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
Personally speaking I think your reply would reflect my own views and
interpretation of what we had agreed on
Mr. Michele Neylon
Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
On 21 Sep 2011, at 19:21, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IPC submitted a very substantive comment regarding the PEDNR report -
> I felt that some of their comments needed to be addressed, as they could
be inferred as saying that the WG was less than meticulous in reviewing the
comments we received to the draft report.
> I have taken the liberty of replying. This was done purely on my only
behalf and I made that clear. Nevertheless, I think (hope?) that the
comments do reflect the views of the WG when it reviewed the original IPC
comments. A copy of my posting is attached.
> As Marika has not yet summarized the comments, I am hoping that my new
post will be reflected in that summary. This is in line with the future
plans to have a "reply" cycle in future comment periods.
> If anyone feels that I have mis-represented the WG, please let me and
Marika know ASAP and I will do what I can to fix it.
> <Reply to IPC.pdf>