<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Re: [gtld-council] Council mail list etiquette
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Council mail list etiquette
- From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 06:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=yaCVOrwL8m7PgoW8qWAP6hXWxyRWIRzyf/9PM9T1lBc3YDUHtFkoTyPmrEEps1+tZXCXRnlc54zjEtMSM78ym9pft8cJNWa2cP1b8IRg7YYK/srQZX4OS72goucFY541Sfs0iuMsPI31A1R6z6iUBt61fxDRxI7A1JmLy2I7STs= ;
- In-reply-to: <006201c65a13$e4277f30$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks Philip,
but then, maybe the original message shouldn't have been sent to all
those people in the first place! because in general when I reply to
such messages (and because I specifically address the content of such
messages), I feel I must at least copy to the same people, for the
record. but I understand for the council lists... btw, do we have all
council members on the gtld-council list, or vice versa? I'm just not
sure of the order now...
Mawaki
--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Sophia and fellow Council members,
> may I remind you (and in so doing commit the same error for
> emphasis) that the "reply to
> all" function results in multi-list postings.
> I just read your last email three times and some Council members
> will have seen it four
> times.
>
> In general:
> - If copying council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx one should delete the
> individual addresses of Council
> members.
> - one should only copy to one Council list at a time, so choose
> between
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx for general matters or a more specific list
> such as
> gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx or owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|