RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Avri,

"I have advocated it from the beginning.  I have done so based on
discussions with others in the NCSG."  That's all you had to say.
That's good enough for me for it to be kept in the report.  

K  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text


Hi,

I have advocated it from the beginning.
I have done so based on discussions with others in the NCSG.

But this has been considered insufficient by Mr Williams.
And it looked like his voice was sufficient for this group to remove it
from document.
Which of course is no surprise given the way this process is going.

Anything anyone from the contracted parties does not want in the
document seems ripe for striking.

a.


On 20 Jul 2010, at 10:45, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> If you or someone else on the WG has suggested (even if only reporting

> suggestions from their respective SG) a .ngo SRSU, that's fine and you

> should say so.  I thought Eric was saying that no one on the WG had 
> advocated for or suggested one and, in that case, it didn't seem 
> appropriate to keep it in the report.  (I also didn't read your 
> previous message as saying that you had.)
> 
> K
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:38 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> while i am putting out a minority report about suppression of various 
> issues, i hope that this too is not suppressed.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 20 Jul 2010, at 10:34, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
>> If there is no "owner" of the .ngo suggestion, it should come out.  
>> My
> 
>> email indicates that Eric suggested the language to me for the SRSU 
>> text.  If it's not his suggestion more broadly and not anyone else's,

>> we should delete it.
> 
>