RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
- To: <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>, "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:23:52 -0400
- Cc: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "2DOW2tf" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcRDV5h5gjbGBpF+TYuLqEzv0048vAAFDLGA
- Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Revised draft
Having lived through multiple TFs before, we have to take seriously the need to examine a recommendation thoroughly before making it a consensus policy recommendation. This is the Interim Report, folks, for comment, right? We should note that we know there is a need for more complete examination. Also, as I stated before, I have mentioned my constituency's view that this deserves more exploration more than one time on the TF calls. I am not suggesting that we start another TF. I am suggesting that the work needs to be done to examine this; it is possible it can be done in an Implementation working group effort. But to fail to identify and recommend how to address these issues, or to at least acknowledge them makes the TF's work incomplete.
Marilyn S. Cade
AT&T Law & Government Affairs
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
Washington, DC 20036
From: Magnolia Mansourkia [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 3:25 PM
To: 'Thomas Keller'; 'Steve Metalitz'
Cc: 'Jordyn A. Buchanan'; '2DOW2tf'; Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Revised draft
But wouldn't another task force, study or something be necessary anyway to
address the viability, cost, etc.?? The point is that until we have answers
to these questions, we really don't know if the concept (which is agreeable)
can become a roadmap or policy description (which needs to explored to see
if it can work).
I'd like to adopt change that the concept needs more work or "exploration"
but I do agree with Jordyn that the goal of further exploration should be to
answer the unanswered issues noted, not have a multi-leg or redundant
process in place.
I also have a couple of edits I'll be forwarding shortly.
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:13 PM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: Jordyn A. Buchanan; 2DOW2tf
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
I believe that the former version reflected the discussions we had over the
month very good and therefore object against adopting the new changes.
My interpretation of the DOW is that this taskforce has to recommend a
for the problems identified as in scope of the taskforce and not to refer
to yet another taskforce/steeringgroup whatsoever. Please correct me if I'm
but that is exactly what "a topic of further explanation" means to me.
Am 26.05.2004 schrieb Steve Metalitz:
> Another alternative would simply be to put a period after "exploration."
> The specific questions could be left to sec. 3.5.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM
> To: Steve Metalitz
> Cc: 2DOW2tf
> Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
> I'm hoping others will have an opportunity to review Steve's changes
> fairly quickly.
> Steve: one thing I notice is that your proposed changes to the tiered
> access provision seems to make even further exploration dependent on
> resolving viability, financial feasability, etc. I'm not sure if that's
> the intent, but that's how it reads right now.
> On May 26, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Steve Metalitz wrote:
> > Attached please find suggested edits to sec. 1.4 to bring this summary
> > closer into line with the content of the recommendations in sec. 3.3
> > (local law) and 3.5 (tiered access).
> > Steve Metalitz
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:57 PM
> > To: '2DOW2tf'
> > Subject: [dow2tf] Revised draft
> > Hi all:
> > Sorry to send out another draft, but Glen was kind enough to provide
> > me with most of the links listed in the documents. I've added them,
> > and in the process moved just about all links into footnotes. I
> > imagine in the HTML version of the document, they'll simply become
> > hyperlinks.
> > This version of the document is also relative to last week's document,
> > so if you haven't yet looked at the version from last night, don't
> > bother. This tracks changes included in that document as well.
> > Jordyn
> > <TF 2 sec 1.4 redline sjm 052604.doc>
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w