NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
"Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:31:23 -0300
Reply-To:
avri doria <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
avri doria <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=windows-1252
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
On 05-Apr-16 11:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Avri: The language about what was acceptable to NCSG was suggested, and comments sent to the list to see if people agreed. 

I think the issue is borderline.

The group decided on grandfathering the current contract and was not
explicit that this was only for the term and not for renewal.


>
> Avri and Ed: I am focused exclusively on the mission limitations language in Article 1. To provide feedback on that, you do not need to read every little detail in the 200+ page bylaws, e.g., how the escalation process works or how a SCWG is formed. Are you able to give me a sense of whether the mission has been limited properly or whether Appendix G exemptions are too broad?

I needed to spend some time reading and comparing language something I
had not done at that time.

avri

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

ATOM RSS1 RSS2