RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items

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

If the key proponents of each proposal are not identified, the failure to do so 
will be interpreted as an effort to hide the information. Even if that's not 
the motivation (and I'm not suggesting that it is), that's how it will be 
interpreted. We're going to have to read enough public comment as it is without 
having to wade through a bunch that seek to discredit all the work b/c that 
information was not provided.  


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:19 PM
To: Jean Christophe VIGNES; Sivasubramanian M; Mike O'Connor
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items


What if  I support multiple proposals? Should my name be on every proposal I 
support? Who is responsible for adding and collecting the supporters for each 
proposal?

Maybe if we have supporters we should have opposers listed (not sure if 
opposers is a word, may need to ask Palin) .

I am just pointing out how ridiculous this seems to be getting that people want 
to show their popularity and who was involved.  Is that how we want this to be 
judged, by the people who wrote the proposals? How about we actually let the 
proposals stand up on their own and be looked at for their merits.





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jean Christophe VIGNES
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:09 AM
To: Sivasubramanian M; Mike O'Connor
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items


I fully agree. Besides the "supporters" for each proposal do appear clearly in 
the Polls so that is at best redundant.

JC

Le 22/07/10 18:24, « Sivasubramanian M » <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

Mike,

This is just a point about uniformity of the format of proposals as featured in 
the draft report.  On page 78, Rack + shows a list of supporters which was 
possibly a section that the Rack + draft included to list co-proposers. But in 
the draft report, Rack + happens to be the only proposal that shows a list of 
supporters. Outsiders may get the impression (on a rapid glance) that Rack + is 
the 'most supported' proposal, in the absence of a similar list of supporters 
in the other proposals. So this part of the Rack + proposal may please be 
deleted.


Sivasubramanian M




On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

again, sorry if this is "too much information" but we've just had an intense 
storm run through here.  i need to go see if i still have a road to drive on.

i'm hoping a) to be back on the air in about an hour and b) to see a way 
forward on those two remaining issues when i get back.

looks like we're seeing some conversation on Antony's thread.  Jeff, stir 
yourself one last time and help us get your issue closed.

thanks,

mikey


- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109
fax             866-280-2356
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)





______________________
Jean-Christophe Vignes

Executive Vice-President & General Counsel DCL Group 2, rue Léon Laval
L-3372 Leudelange

Tel.:  +352  20 200 123
Mobile : +352 691 600 424
Fax.:   +352 20 300 123
Mailto: JCVignes@xxxxxxxxxxx

www.datacenter.eu   | www.eurodns.com   | www.voipgate.com

________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its 
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--------------------------------------------------------


Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.