 
| Sender: |
|
| X-To: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:23:25 -0500 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:57 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Just to address Alains comments about our 'dirty laundry' - I agree with the general NCUC feeling that a separate NCUC list for policy discussion would probably be a mistake, I think an NCUC list for NCUC internal procedural issues would be the optimum - but I'm loathe to create a separate email list for what is usually a very small number of messages, especially given the confusion that might result between the two (as soon as two separate lists existed, I would foresee a regular quantity of messages to the wrong list).
Or messages being sent to both lists anyway, for fear that someone
will miss one. I agree creating another list would create little
benefit, and potentially cause a lot of confusion.
As suggested by Avri, tagging those rare "NCUC only" messages as such
seems to me to cause the least amount of pain.
---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org
Suggestions for how better to manage the issue welcome.
> Regards
> David
>
>
|
|
|
