Re[2]: [ga-roots] MOTION - Consensus-Based Policy on Alt Roots

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Patrick,

Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 8:28:45 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi William

>> There is no way anyone could claim that such a proposal has any kind
>> of consensus, nor that RFC1591 supports the alt.root claim.
>>
>> Any effort to try and advance this as a consensus policy would be
>> illegitimate.

> Perhaps you could re-read the proposal.  It is AGAINST alt roots.  I cannot
> see how ICANN should not wish to foster compliance !!!!!!

Oh please.  It is carefully worded in order to foster a future action
to try and justify recognition of work in alternative roots.

To claim your motion is against alternative roots is disingenuous,
Patrick, not to mention dishonest.

> With your excellent writing skills, could you suggest how it could be
> improved.

No motion is needed.  No policy is needed.  Privately run root systems
are not within ICANN's mandate, and have no relevance to the ICANN
process.

If the motion even gets a second, it should be tabled, because the
motion in question is outside the scope of the body in question.


-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net


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