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

Re: [wg-b] Final Report

To: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
Subject: Re: [wg-b] Final Report
From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:29:41 -0400 (EDT)
cc: mpalage@infonetworks.com, "Wg-B@Dnso. Org" <wg-b@dnso.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10005152318090.8611-100000@milan.essential.org>
Sender: owner-wg-b@dnso.org

    I should add that like Milton, I assume this is an issue of bad
phrasing, and can be easily corrected.     Jamie


On Mon, 15 May 2000, James Love wrote:
> I agree with Milton that it is quite unfair to suggest there is *any*
> support for the IPC proposal in the NCDNHC.  Jamie
> 
> On Mon, 15 May 2000, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > This is misleading. The preponderance of opinion in the non-commercial
> > constituency is against BOTH a list AND sunrise plus anything. Your
> > statement implies that the constituency supports sunrise. It most
> > emphatically does not. If, as I suspect, this implication arises only from
> > bad phrasing, it could be easily corrected.

=============================================
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176     
=============================================

References:
- Re: [wg-b] Final Report
  - From: James Love <love@cptech.org>

Prev by Date: RE: [wg-b] Final Report
Next by Date: Re: [wg-b] Final Report
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-b] Final Report
Next by thread: NCC position (Re: [wg-b] Final Report)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread