Richard Shockey (rich.shockey@NeuStar.com)
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:25:09 -0500
At 12:58 PM 2/28/2002 -0800, Dan Wing wrote:
>I have long thought (c) would be best. I think the application area
>directors would also prefer (c), as it reduces the number of working groups.
I completely agree ..its a excellent suggestion. I cant imagine the Apps AD
or the IESG objecting to this proposal.
I whole wholeheartedly support option (c)
>
>-d
>Folks,
>
>These drafts discuss some general unified messaging (UM) client issues
>that I think would be worth discussing at both the FAX and VPIM WGs.
>After some discussion, I suggest we need to decide between the following:
>a) create a new BOF/WG to work on UM
>b) recharter VPIM and/or FAX to work on this
>c) close and combine VPIM and FAX into a new UM WG to work on this and
>remaining VPIM/FAX topics
>Cheers,
>Glenn Parsons
>VPIM WG Chair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: rshockey@ix.netcom.com> or
<mailto: <mailto: rich.shockey@neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Feb 28 2002 - 23:24:48 IST