Re: Consensus Call (was: Draft New Draft)

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

Let's wait to see if it matters that INEGroup may or may not actually
exist.  If its existence is not an issue when we are done, we can
ignore the existence controversy.  

If it bwcomes to be a matter of of importantce, then we will have to
commission an invetigation of the facts to determine whether the
INEGroup claims of its huge voting power are valid.

So, this will serve as fair warning of an eventual need for INEGroup
to support its claims with hard evidence in the event that its
reported votes appear to put consensus in doubt.

I hope that with this in mind, that we can proceed without stopping to
validate the existence of INEGroup.

Cheers...\Stef



>From your message Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:19:07 -0800 (PST):
}
}On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
}
}>   In the next two or three days INEGroup will be finishing up our
}> suggestion for a "Consensus Draft" and will include our voting record
}> in that report to the relative lists.  Any Objections?
}
}I have an objection. INEGroup does not exist.
}
}I am doing my upmost in upholding the civil discourse rules of ORSC, and
}the above is merely a statement of fact.
}
}/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
}Coming to the ISPF-II?  The Forum for ISPs by ISPs       http://www.ispf.com
}			          (tinc)
}\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
}
}