NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:00:42 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
Sorry, Julf, I meant to comment.  I don't feel strongly about this, but my fear is that we offer all 3 on the table, that just gives the Board carte blanche to take whichever one they like.  Why don't we just say what we really feel -- that there should be only 1 option on offer and it should be C?

I certainly won't object to "all of them" and "C" but I'm curious

P

Paul Rosenzweig
[log in to unmask]
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 7:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Auction proceeds CCWG - Final Survey on Mechanisms

OK, I will have to respond to the survey by end of the day (UTC) today (Friday). So far only James has really commented.

If I don't get any new input, I will follow the original NCSG opinion and vote for mechanism C, and to keep all 3 on the table for the board to decide (as that is the only way C will have any chance).

	Julf

ATOM RSS1 RSS2