RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

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

Thanks Olof.  Effective now, this is our current draft.

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:16 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

Chuck and all,
Agree with all your edits - and I found one more small thing (just moving 14 to 
the left...) which I've corrected in the attached version.
Best

Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: den 15 mars 2008 14:19
To: Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

My suggested edits to the document are highlighted in the attached file.  I 
made one content edit as follows: at the end of the Methodology section I added 
"which were supported by all group members".  I believe the other changes I 
made are minor, nonmaterial edits and personally think it is ready to go.  I 
would appreciate it if every member of our group would confirm whether they 
agree that it is now ready to go to the Council and if not, suggest any 
additional edits NLT Tuesday, 19 March.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Olof Nordling
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 1:55 PM
To: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

Hi again all,
Proof-reading the clean version myself, I realize it is not entirely clean - 
there is an earlier comment from Chuck still hanging in there and need for a 
microscopic edit in the deletes section for the second part of 15. Please 
replace with the attached "cleanclean" version. For the rest, I think it looks 
mighty good...
Best regards

Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Olof Nordling
Sent: den 14 mars 2008 18:09
To: Gomes, Chuck; Thomas Keller; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

Chuck and all,
Of course! Here goes, see attached, a consolidated version, both redline and 
clean (the markup version suffers a bit from concatenated changes, so I 
recommend proof-reading the clean one).
Best regards (and have a nice weekend!)

Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: den 14 mars 2008 14:24
To: Thomas Keller; Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

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.
>
>