Dear CCWG:
To confirm our comprehension of the CCWG’s decisions on the many changes from the Second to the Third Proposal, we reviewed the Third Proposal as published. In
doing so, we noted points where the language in the Third Proposal does not unambiguously reflect our current substantive understanding of the CCWG’s intent. In our comments on the Third Proposal draft, we suggested edits on many of these points which were
not accepted, so perhaps we have misunderstood the intent. As to other points, we don’t have a clear understanding of the CCWG’s intent. In either case, we would like clarification.
In the attached table you will find our joint substantive comments on the Third Proposal as published. As we approach the implementation stage, we would welcome
an opportunity to discuss any of our comments that raise questions or concerns, to ensure we know what we’re asked to implement. We also hope these comments may be useful to clarify the final proposal for the general reader.
To make the volume of our comments more manageable, we are sending staff separately our comments on the Third Proposal that raise only non-substantive issues.
Holly and Rosemary
_____________________________
The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected
from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at rfei@adlercolvin.com,
and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you.
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.