RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Outcome of survey + updated conclusions and recommendations chapter

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Joe:

I agree that this language is not clear.  We are certainly making
recommendations for future work, which may include policy development. 
The current report, however, doesn't contain any immediate changes to
consensus policy.

Can you recommend alternative wording that would satisfy your concerns?

Thanks--

J.


   -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Outcome of survey + updated
 conclusions and recommendations chapter
 From: Joe St Sauver <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Tue, June 30, 2009 11:25 am
 To: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx
 Cc: gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
 
 
 Hi,
 
 I strongly object to the current "Recommended Next Steps" introduction 
 which states,
 
 "Based on the findings described in this report and the extensive
 discussions that have taken place, the Working Group does not deem
 it appropriate or effective to make any recommendation for policy
 development or policy changes to address fast flux hosting at this
 point in time."
 
 That statement simply makes no sense given the portfolio of ideas which
 then follow.
 
 Joe