RE: [net-com] VeriSign and Neulevel
- To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "'Kurt Pritz'" <pritz@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [net-com] VeriSign and Neulevel
- From: "Tina Dam" <dam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:10:44 -0700
- Cc: <net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <200406211015.i5LAFwQ9006202@turbo.aim.be>
- Sender: owner-net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcRXcS2HwflLFz5nT3u6/UaZbtKEFQABr/CwADy7+xA=
The task you are requesting can certainly be made - however, I have not seen
your email in time for this to be ready for today's call, reason being that
I this week is in Denmark. I will be on the call in about an hour and we can
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 3:17 AM
To: 'Tina Dam'; 'Kurt Pritz'
Subject: RE: [net-com] VeriSign and Neulevel
It is regrettable that we receive lengthy comments from two potential
interested parties at the very end of the comment period. A little less
checking by the lawyers and more consideration for the process timelines
would have been helpful!
Could you do a comparison of the substantive changes proposed by Verisign
and Neulevel especially with respect to the absolute technical criteria?
They both propose lists and they might be essentially the same. A side by
side tabular comparison in a Word document would make evaluating these
possible additions much easier for the sub-committee on the June 22 call.
Look at the appendix of the Neulevel letter and the first part of the