<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
- To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
- From: "Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:50:39 +0100
Hi Kristina,
The morning after in Europe , so I have no idea what was finally put out by
" the Americans "
I equally object to the tactic of trying to push something through at the
last minute , without the ability to comment , as us Europeans are in bed !
This SRSU exception has been flogged to death, IMO and there IS broad
support.
Great job BTW ,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 2:37 AM
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
Back online 90 minutes after 2400 GMT (as promised earlier) and I
object. Tim's text has been out for comments for far shorter time than
the other sections. I, for one, have been too busy working on the SRSU
section and IP summary to focus on it.
It's my understanding that there is broad support for the idea of an
SRSU exception even if there is no general agreement on the specific
iteration. JN2 have an SRSU, BRU1 has one, and (drumroll, please) IPC
and NCSG are in agreement on the need for one. If that's not broad
support, what is? Seriously.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:43 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
coolio.
others? going once...
i'm still in heavy-edit mode, but my goal is to be done in a couple
hours. so speak soon. :-)
mikey
On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Perfect.
Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail using my iPad!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 7:31 pm
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
seems to me that they can get introduced as such
- use your language as the introduction
- move the more-detailed write-ups to the Annexes
- note that these are still in very early stages of discussion,
represent an early draft from a subset of the group, and that we
welcome ideas from the broader community
something like that work?
mikey
On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
If they go in, how will it be made clear that those sections only
represent the ideas of a small subset of the WG? They did not even
exist when we did the poll! At best they are more or less minority
reports.
The only general agreement that exists is for what I am proposing
goes in their place.
Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail using my iPad!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 6:56 pm
To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
I have put some thought into it and I think it is worth including
Kristina and Brian's summaries, even though I saw the wisdom of the
4 points Tim eloquently stated.
-Jothan
Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
i know -- but at a minimum i'd like to hear from the other two
"summarizers" before proceeding that way... Brian, Kristina, others,
what say you?
mikey
On Jul 20, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Again, I would rather we use my suggested text to replace all
three of these sections - Exceptions, SRSU, and Compliance. I
believe there several others who were in agreement that.
Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail using my iPad!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:38 pm
To: <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Here's revised SRSU exception
text that incorporates some
(not all) of Eric's changes
and most of Jeff N.'s wording
(I tweaked it slightly by
adding /SRMU and using .brand
and .ngo). I didn't receive
any other changes.
I've left a placeholder for
other exception text (Richard
- HINT!). I've also left a
placeholder for text that sets
out the criticisms of SRSU. I
think it's important to
include that - not only for
balance, but to help those who
may submit public comments.
I don't know if this is DIR,
but I have to offline until
after 2400 GMT so am sending
it along now. (I will be back
online about 90 minutes after
2400 GMT if that helps.)
Our document comparison
software is offline so I can't
generate a redline. Apologies.
K
- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109
fax 866-280-2356
web http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
Google, etc.)
- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109
fax 866-280-2356
web http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
Google, etc.)
- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109
fax 866-280-2356
web http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|