[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems


On 15-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
>  That is, kindly, utter nonsense.  

It is time for ICANN to assume a leadership role here.

It is obvious to anyone that the leadership of the WMB proposal has no intent
of working in good faith to merge these two drafts.

ICANN needs to make it abundantly clear, and in no uncertain terms, that they
(and indeed this should apply to both sides) MUST do so in order to remain
involved in the process, or have their application rescinded.

Without a clear mandate to do so, it is clear that they will not.  

Will ICANN mandate that the two processes come together and created a merged
consensus?  


----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
Date: 15-Feb-99
Time: 13:46:40
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts." 
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977