<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- To: "jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx" <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>, "krosette@xxxxxxx" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "mike@xxxxxxxxxx" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:49:43 -0400
If so, support of NCSG members for SR/MU should be noted in the report. The
combination of CSG and NCSG indicates an important level of support among GNSO
user representatives, even if it does not constitute consensus.
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
I also think that SRMU is a case we pretty much rejected as too difficult to
define without risking gaming and abuse. So the the emphasis should definitely
be on the SRSU.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|