<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO WG Report
- To: "Griffin,Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO WG Report
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:04:19 -0700
<html><body><div>I don't recall any such decision. Including it seems in
line with 8.c. of Annex A </div>
<div>of the ByLaws (since no TF was actually formed for the PDP this WG is part
of).</div>
<div>And the SOW for this WG states:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include
and<BR>consider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more
important<BR>that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than
for<BR>every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers
of<BR>members. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So I have a hard time understanding any argument against not including
it.</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div ><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[SUSPECTED SPAM][gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO WG Report<BR>From:
"Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Fri, June 22, 2007
4:33 pm<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=594243321-22062007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I think we discussed this already.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim
Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 22, 2007 11:38 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [SUSPECTED SPAM][gnso-pro-wg] PDP
Dec 05: PRO WG Report<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Why?<BR><BR>Tim <BR>
<DIV><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[SUSPECTED SPAM][gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO WG Report<BR>From:
"Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Fri, June 22, 2007
11:31 am<BR>To: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>,
<gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR><PRE>Liz:
I do not agree that this should be called a "minority statement".
-Lance
-----Original Message-----
From: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=100836#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A> [mailto:<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=100836#Compose";
target=_blank>owner-gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:31 AM
To: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=gnso-pro-wg%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=replyall&folder=INBOX&uid=100836#Compose";
target=_blank>gnso-pro-wg<B></B>@icann.org</A>
Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM][gnso-pro-wg] PDP Dec 05: PRO WG Report
Colleagues
I have omitted, in error, Tim Ruiz' minority statement which he wanted
included in the PRO WG report.
It is attached here for your information and for consideration within
the PRO WG discussion on 23 June.
After the meeting, I will amend the posted report to ensure that it's
included as part of the record within the report.
Kind regards.
Liz
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|