Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:56:58 -0500
yep. all of that.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> Don’t we also need to continue to work on the items in the Initial Report as
> well? Namely, (a) responding to the public comments, (b) working on the
> definitions of SRSU, etc. There are many other ones, but these are the first
> 2 that popped into my head.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete
> the original message.
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Volker Greimann
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 2:41 PM
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms
> this list is work in progress, even more so than our initial report, because
> we have actually talked about the points in the report. The list of harms is
> worthless without annotations, arguments and accompanying discussions.
> If we released as is, readers would always take it as a result, not as a
> launching pad for discussions, no matter how much we state that it is just a
> basis for discussion, not a result.
> I would recommend that, even if we do not compile the list of harms into this
> report, we do not stop working on it.
> As some have said during the call and in the chat, the Board retreat is not
> the end of the story.
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)