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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

RACK supporters' choice (basically, propaganda/marketing) to include a list of 
supporters does not make that list an indelible part of the proposal. A list of 
supporters is not part of the substance of a proposal. The proposals are 
relevant only for their substance, not for their supporters. Delete it.

--MM

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 3:24 PM
To: Phil Buckingham; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Sivasubramanian M
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Mike O'Connor
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items

RACK included signatories. Others chose not to. It has been out that way for 
momths. They are part of the proposal. Removing them is NOT an option unless 
we're allowed to start editing the proposals as well.

If anything in RACK is changed or there is any other major change to the 
report, it should NOT be posted for at least 72 hrs to allow review.

Tim
________________________________
From: "Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:19:44 +0100
To: Sivasubramanian M<isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>; Mike O'Connor<mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] a couple last items

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<mailto:isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Mike O'Connor<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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.)