RE: additional drafts for dnso

[Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>]

Stef,

You wrote:

> Hi Roberto -- Because I believe this consensus generating process is
> greatly improved by spreading the discussion to the far corners of the
> stakeholder community.  The m9ore we share and spread common ideas,
> the faster we can converge and the more we can improve the result.
> 
> So, why do you ask?  Did I violate some unwritten rule about keepings
> things compartmentalized among factions?
> 
Not at all.
In fact, I realized that I was not clear in my question.
What surprised me was not the forward to ORSC (which I found reasonable),
but the answer on participants@dnso.org instead of discuss@dnso.org, i.e. to
answer on the "closed" list rather than to the "open" list, where the
question was asked (and that has a much wider attendance).

Regards
Roberto

P.S. may I piggyback my own message with the following post, already sent on
IFWP.
Do you also receive my annoying read receipts?


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Roberto Gaetano 
	Sent:	28 January 1999 09:09
	To:	IFWP Discussion List
	Subject:	[ifwp] Apologies and request for help

	Folks,

	I have to apologise for the tons of read confirmation messages I
have caused
	to the list.

	OTOH, I have no idea about why this is happening.
	My Send options seem to be correct (i.e., neither delivery nor read
	receipt).
	The system people here didn't find anything abnormal.

	My impression is that my computer is doing this only when I am
connected via
	modem, not when I am in my office.

	Any suggestion?

	Thanks
	Roberto



---------------------------
"To do otherwise is inconsistent with the requirements of the White Paper"
(various authors - standard sentence to prove a point when all other means
have failed)