RE: schedule of action Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I also suggested earlier to others that the constituencies must form views,
since they worked together to generate a NC resolution. 

I believe that several are hard at work to try to understand the
issues/benefits/risks, etc.

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:44 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: schedule of action Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the
Verisign deal


On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:55:17 -0500, you wrote:

>         It would make sense, I think, for any constituency that wants to 
>submit views in its own name to start its own process going now, without 
>regard to ours.  I gather that the registrars have already begun doing
this.

Can I endorse this view.  For historical reasons the consensus of the
GA alone is unlikely to carry much weight (but will carry some).
However if the DNSO reports each of the seven constituencies also has
consulted its members and their views are X, then position X will be
very hard for the Board to ignore.

DPF

--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html