RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

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

Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?  I
know that timing is a problem.  Given how many folks are signed up for the
GA, can we say that there is consensus?  I know, some think that failure to
vote, means agreement.

I find that in many groups, it means too many messages, not caught up yet,
not sure, etc.

If that is the case (not saying it is), for the GA numbers, is there a
problem with asserting that there is consensus? Perhaps it is that the
consensus is among those who voted?

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 6:36 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Roberto Gaetano; philip.sheppard@europe.com; council@dnso.org;
ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract


Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 3:30:51 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:


> Ah, you're right, I should have been clearer about the forum language.
> Well, maybe then, there is that flexibility  if enough concur.  But, can
you
> live with his original language, though? 

I don't see it as representative of the consensus of the GA.

It implies that the GA thinks a change in the policy for .org IS
something that should be considered provided that existing registrants
aren't required to give up their names.

I haven't seen any such consensus here on that, nor do I think that
statement is appropriate or reflective of the sense of the GA.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com

--
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