<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
- To: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>, "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:23:37 -0400
Thanks Tom.
Olof - can you make the change in your document and then add your document to
mine to create a new version for discussion on the list?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 4:39 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
Hi Chuck,
I'm fine with the proposed language.
Best,
tom
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. März 2008 20:45
An: Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
The changes Olof made look good to me. In addition I support Tom's suggestion
for beefing up the notes for deleting the second part of issue 15. I believe
that Tom was referring to the work of the original IRTP task force; if I am
correct, then I took a crack at beefing it up as shown in the attached file.
Tom - Does what I did beef it up as you suggested? Is it accurate?
All - Please comment as well.
Thanks,
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:55 PM
> To: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
>
> Dear all,
> Attached is my attempt to "beef up" our deletes section, with changes
> shown as mark-up. I have essentially elaborated a little on our
> reasoning without stretching the substance much further. Enough? Too
> much? Too little? Foot faults? - Well, please comment.
>
> Best regards
>
> Olof
>
> PS. As to "CT", my preliminary finding is that it is indeed a misprint
> for "Consensus Ranking", which is the term used for these values in
> Ross' group's final document to the Council.
> I'm inclined to suggest replacing "CT" by "Consensus Ranking", spelled
> out.
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|