RE: [gnso-trans-wg] FW: Transfers prioritization - a very small question...

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds good to me, especially since that is what I think I already did
in the latest draft.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:03 PM
> To: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-trans-wg] FW: Transfers prioritization - a 
> very small question...
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> Regarding the "CT" issue, I just got confirmation from a most 
> authoritative source - Ross himself - that this is a typo, see below.
> Accordingly, let's skip CT and use Consensus Ranking whenever 
> we need to, in order to stay consistent with the prio group's 
> vocabulary.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Olof
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: den 12 mars 2008 18:54
> To: Olof Nordling
> Subject: Re: Transfers prioritization - a very small question...
> 
> Hi Olof -
> 
> I would guess that this is a typo that may have crept in somewhere.
> The group I worked with only discussed the "consensus 
> rankings" - I don't have any recollection of anything that 
> looked like "CT".
> 
> Hope this helps!
> 
> -ross
> 
> On Mar 12, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Olof Nordling wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ross,
> > A small group of volunteers is currently finalizing the work of 
> > suggesting groupings of the "remaining" transfers issues, based on 
> > your groups priority settings. In that work, we reference your 
> > Consensus Rankings of the individual issues, but somehow they have 
> > seeped into our document as, for example, CT 6.0, where I wonder 
> > whether "CT" is just a misprint for "CR" or has some other 
> > significance. I suppose the former, as I cannot find "CT" in your 
> > earlier documents, but I would appreciate your confirmation or 
> > comments on that.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Olof
> 
> 
>