Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

im good with it

RT

On Jul 22, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> anybody have a problem with this?  
> 
> i'll assume this is OK unless i hear otherwise...
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Brian Cute wrote:
> 
>> I commend the drafters (primarily RT and JN I believe) for their good 
>> attempt to interpret the meaning and potential implication of DAG4.  I think 
>> it needs to be made explicit that individual members of the VIWG don’t 
>> necessarily adhere to this interpretation since it remains unclear what 
>> implementation of DAG4 would look like if that’s what the final policy 
>> became.  Could a phrase to that effect be added to the text?  “nor do all 
>> individual members of the VIWG adhere to this interpretation.”
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
>