Re: Draft New Draft

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Not so simple. I think a more likely scenario is that most of them probably
didn't *completely* understand what most of the message was talking about
(either because it was out of context or because of linguistical problems).
Note also that the message doesn't make it clear if the question is being
asked on a personal basis or if it is expecting an oficial statement from
that person on behalf of the ccTLD for which he is admin contact.

Given that, I think it sounds very likely to find that a few/many/most of
them would just take it as a personal question/poll asking them if they
support RFC-1591 FULL STOP. (which obviously just about everyone does).

Look at the reply that Patrick gave. It was a one word message stating
"YES".
I also saw a few messages with the wording:
"XX supports RFC-1591"
Which at least says that the guy is answering on behalf of that ccTLD, but
is only stating the obvious (ie, that he supports RFC-1591).

If I'm so wrong about all of this, how come we haven't seen a deluge of
those 73 ccTLDs coming out and saying "John, you've got it all wrong and
we're very happy with the iaTLD".
Would seem to go along with the feeling that they don't know what is
happening...

Yours, John Broomfield.

> OK, so you say that 70+ ccTLD managers read "The subject says it all" and
> then just hit reply?
> 
> Come on Mr Broomfield.
> 
> And I notice you did not answer my comments about your misstatements on the
> points of the 5 registries or any of the other rather salient parts of my
> message.  Very telling indeed.

If I had to comment on EVERYTHING you wrote I would need a few extra hours
per day...