<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] [Fwd: [wg-review] Re:APPEAL OF 2/27/01]
Here is the list of all members concurring in the appeal letter. For
those of you who have not concurred but wish to, try to do it before
noon on the 6th, California time, so that I can be assured of hard copy
before I leave for Melbourne. I want to be sure that Mr. Babybows has as
much support as he can get.
It is well to note that no one, and I mean no one, wrote a negative on
this issue. Consensus, ya I call that consensus.
Also please note that the list is still running, this is a good thing.
I ask for guidance here; where should we move this, assuming they pull
the plug? I like Sotiris' site and it would appear the ICANNwatch site
may be appropriate.
On the issue raised regarding membership onto this list, I assume
someone is addressing that through structure.
Sincerely,
In accordance with good practice I only include copy of partial previous mail.
"Babybows.com" wrote:
> Pursuant to the adoption of the DRAFT Rules of Procedure for the DNSO Names
> Council, v2 on February 26, wherein it is stipulated that, "Any of the
> following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by e-mail to
> nc-intake@dnso.org :," and that such persons include "members of the General
> Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org
> or the GA voting register", and whereas I, Danny Younger, as a member of
> Review Working Group and as an individual listed in the GA voting register,
> meet the above criteria, I make the following proposal for an NC agenda
> item: Reconsideration of the Timeline of the Review Working Group - an
> amendment to Decision D2.
>
As a member of both the GA and this working group I concur in this formal
appeal.
I also ask all members still monitoring to contribute to preparing a further
report to be presented in Melbourne. With this appeal as an example I disclose
that I do not agree with all of what is written here, but I will stand behind it
fully as opposed to failure to act and appear with less than a united opinion.
If you concur in this position simply use the header and write concur. To keep
traffic down and for ease do not address anything further on the response. Let
us make it simple to calculate. If you have a need to discuss the issue please
use Babybows' original header.
Sincerely,
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
I am surprised to find myself agreeing with enough of the aforesaid to
concur fully.
bukko
OD2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Eric Dierker
Sent: 27 February 2001 18:12
To: Babybows.com
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-review] Re:APPEAL OF 2/27/01
In accordance with good practice I only include copy of partial previous
mail.
"Babybows.com" wrote:
> Pursuant to the adoption of the DRAFT Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names
> Council, v2 on February 26, wherein it is stipulated that, "Any of the
> following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by e-mail to
> nc-intake@dnso.org :," and that such persons include "members of the
General
> Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org
> or the GA voting register", and whereas I, Danny Younger, as a member of
> Review Working Group and as an individual listed in the GA voting
register,
> meet the above criteria, I make the following proposal for an NC agenda
> item: Reconsideration of the Timeline of the Review Working Group - an
> amendment to Decision D2.
>
As a member of both the GA and this working group I concur in this formal
appeal.
I also ask all members still monitoring to contribute to preparing a further
report to be presented in Melbourne. With this appeal as an example I
disclose
that I do not agree with all of what is written here, but I will stand
behind it
fully as opposed to failure to act and appear with less than a united
opinion.
If you concur in this position simply use the header and write concur. To
keep
traffic down and for ease do not address anything further on the response.
Let
us make it simple to calculate. If you have a need to discuss the issue
please
use Babybows' original header.
Sincerely,
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
I concur Completely!
Forrester D. Rupp
Concur
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- To: <wg-review@dnso.org>, "Eric Dierker" <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>
- Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re:APPEAL OF 2/27/01
- From: "rob j" <junivers@sprint.ca>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:09:30 -0500
- References: <NDBBJHDDILJHEHGGGCCEKENKCEAA.webmaster@babybows.com><3A9BEDD3.8B9B42A5@HI-TEK.COM>
Concur.
/R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>
To: "Babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:11 PM
Subject: [wg-review] Re:APPEAL OF 2/27/01
> In accordance with good practice I only include copy of partial previous
mail.
>
> "Babybows.com" wrote:
>
> > Pursuant to the adoption of the DRAFT Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names
> > Council, v2 on February 26, wherein it is stipulated that, "Any of the
> > following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by e-mail to
> > nc-intake@dnso.org :," and that such persons include "members of the
General
> > Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org,
announce@dnso.org
> > or the GA voting register", and whereas I, Danny Younger, as a member of
> > Review Working Group and as an individual listed in the GA voting
register,
> > meet the above criteria, I make the following proposal for an NC agenda
> > item: Reconsideration of the Timeline of the Review Working Group - an
> > amendment to Decision D2.
> >
>
> As a member of both the GA and this working group I concur in this formal
> appeal.
> I also ask all members still monitoring to contribute to preparing a
further
> report to be presented in Melbourne. With this appeal as an example I
disclose
> that I do not agree with all of what is written here, but I will stand
behind it
> fully as opposed to failure to act and appear with less than a united
opinion.
>
> If you concur in this position simply use the header and write concur. To
keep
> traffic down and for ease do not address anything further on the response.
Let
> us make it simple to calculate. If you have a need to discuss the issue
please
> use Babybows' original header.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
concur
I emphatically concur.
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Hermes Network, Inc.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
I concur.
Chris White
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
I concur.
Rod Dixon
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
i concur.
I concur.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
I concur in this formal appeal.
Luca Muscarà
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
I concur
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
CONCUR
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:11:31 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> In accordance with good practice I only include copy of partial previous
mail.
>
> "Babybows.com" wrote:
>
> > Pursuant to the adoption of the DRAFT Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names
> > Council, v2 on February 26, wherein it is stipulated that, "Any of the
> > following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by e-mail to
> > nc-intake@dnso.org :," and that such persons include "members of the
General
> > Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org,
announce@dnso.org
> > or the GA voting register", and whereas I, Danny Younger, as a member
of
> > Review Working Group and as an individual listed in the GA voting
register,
> > meet the above criteria, I make the following proposal for an NC agenda
> > item: Reconsideration of the Timeline of the Review Working Group - an
> > amendment to Decision D2.
> >
>
> As a member of both the GA and this working group I concur in this formal
> appeal.
> I also ask all members still monitoring to contribute to preparing a
further
> report to be presented in Melbourne. With this appeal as an example I
disclose
> that I do not agree with all of what is written here, but I will stand
behind it
> fully as opposed to failure to act and appear with less than a united
opinion.
>
> If you concur in this position simply use the header and write concur. To
keep
> traffic down and for ease do not address anything further on the
response. Let
> us make it simple to calculate. If you have a need to discuss the issue
please
> use Babybows' original header.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
I concur
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
I concur.
Eric Jonvel
France.
> > Pursuant to the adoption of the DRAFT Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names
> > Council, v2 on February 26, wherein it is stipulated that, "Any of the
> > following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items by e-mail to
> > nc-intake@dnso.org :," and that such persons include "members of the
General
> > Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the ga@dnso.org,
announce@dnso.org
> > or the GA voting register", and whereas I, Danny Younger, as a member
of
> > Review Working Group and as an individual listed in the GA voting
register,
> > meet the above criteria, I make the following proposal for an NC agenda
> > item: Reconsideration of the Timeline of the Review Working Group - an
> > amendment to Decision D2.
> >
>
> As a member of both the GA and this working group I concur in this formal
> appeal.
> I also ask all members still monitoring to contribute to preparing a
further
> report to be presented in Melbourne. With this appeal as an example I
disclose
> that I do not agree with all of what is written here, but I will stand
behind it
> fully as opposed to failure to act and appear with less than a united
opinion.
>
> If you concur in this position simply use the header and write concur. To
keep
> traffic down and for ease do not address anything further on the
response. Let
> us make it simple to calculate. If you have a need to discuss the issue
please
> use Babybows' original header.
>
> Sincerely,
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|