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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I know this is after the fact, but let me note that the intent in
yesterday's meeting was mainly to get a reasonable sense of how the full
WG felt about proposed recommendations rather than getting final
approval.  The goal was to give the subgroups guidance that they could
use as they finalize their recommendations and thereby maximize the
chances of getting full WG support next week.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
        Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:54 PM
        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