Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:55:31 -0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
My conciliation proposal does not call for a freeze/moratorium, so if
the phrase proposed is not included, it will not be for this reason.
If the phrase I suggested (or a similar one) is to be associated with
the proponent, instead of being included in the NCUC statement, then I
prefer to submit my proposal through other channels, including the idea
of a temporary freeze, of course.
[]s fraternos
--c.a.
Milton Mueller wrote:
>I would say that strong opposition to the idea of a moratorium has been expressed, and no support expressed aside from Carlos. So my preference would be to identify that idea with its proponent, Carlos, if it is included at all.
>
>
>
>>>>Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> 1/31/2006 3:30:26 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>I haven't got any new reaction on Carlos' last proposal so far - is
>there any support? Thanks Carlos! Sorry I couldn't get earlier to my
>
>.
>
>
>
|
|
|