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

["Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sivasubramanian,

Good spot- now on page 81 (?)  . Must be consistent across all proposals . This 
list of supporters MUST be deleted. There must be no indication of any form of  
"conflict of interest" between Board members and VI WG members.
I think I should leave it at that !

regards

Phil 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sivasubramanian M 
  To: Mike O'Connor 
  Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items


  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.)