RE: [gnso-sl-wg] Revised document with changes to single letter at 2nd level rec

["Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>]

I understand, thanks for the clarification. We still have our SG call on
Monday to finalize our work.

 

Patrick

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:54 AM
To: 'Patrick Jones'; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] Revised document with changes to single letter at
2nd level rec

 

Patrick, sounds okay to me, but I don't think we can expect people to have
signed off on changes that are being received today. I think they can be
included, but we all need to understand that each sub group may not have
fully reviewed changes received yesterday and today. So, I'll try to allow
for how that is handled in the call. I know everyone is working hard, and
right up to the last minute. So, my suggestion as acting chair, is that you
include changes received but we have to be careful about mailing out too
many versions of the full report. People will get dizzy from the re-printing
fumes. :-)  I can't fully review stuff coming in since I am also drafting on
Controversial Names right now, so I may have questions, but again, I am
suggesting that you include them but keep them in mark up. 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Patrick Jones
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:24 AM
To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] Revised document with changes to single letter at
2nd level rec

 

Alistair's edits seem reasonable. If there are no objections, I will include
them.

 

Patrick

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alistair DIXON
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:17 AM
To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-sl-wg] Revised document with changes to single letter at 2nd
level rec

 

At the last working group I volunteered to review the recommendations on
single letters and numbers at the second level.  I have made amendments that
arise from the RFC 1535 problem identified by Steve Bellovin.  

 

I have also reviewed the recommendations in relation to two letters at the
top level and, as discussed on the last working group call, I confirm no
change is required.

 

Alistair