Re[4]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Thursday, August 19, 1999, 7:31:34 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:


> William Walsh wrote:
>> Thursday, August 19, 1999, 1:47:17 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Just for the record, I'd want MANY (many being probably something between
>> > 200-2000, though for others, that might mean not many at all). I'd be happy
>> > to start with "few"... Stands a better chance of evolving into "many" than
>> > deciding "none".
>> 
>> And that is EXACTLY what option 2 says.  Option one says to start with
>> a few, and no assumption that there will ever be many.  It implies
>> that a second round of proposals would be called for to further
>> expand, proposals which would then have the strong opposition of those
>> who got included in the initial "few" round.
>> 
>> Option two does start with a few, not many.  It then seeks to further
>> expand them, unless there is a reason to stop.

> <flame>
> Why don't you drop it? Are you trying to pound in the point that there is
> confusion in the wording? Apart from that, can you not understand that you
> are not the only one that can read English, and therefore has read the
> original questions? Would you mind stopping your continuous interpretation
> of what everyone else is saying, in particular myself? I really don't need
> your translation of my text and answers.

What do you have to fear from answering my questions, Mr Broomfield,
rather than attacking me for asking them?  And then to accuse me of
doing something I wasn't?

Is that really productive? Does that really further your goal of
trying to force you point of view on others over their objections?

Since you snipped them out to avoid them, let me repost them here :

> And that is EXACTLY what option 2 says.  Option one says to start with
> a few, and no assumption that there will ever be many.  It implies
> that a second round of proposals would be called for to further
> expand, proposals which would then have the strong opposition of those
> who got included in the initial "few" round.
> 
> Option two does start with a few, not many.  It then seeks to further
> expand them, unless there is a reason to stop.
> 
> What is wrong with that approach EXACTLY.
> 
> No more generalities, lets get down to specifics.  What exactly is
> wrong with that approach?

So what is wrong with that approach?  What exactly is the problem?

Lets get into the details as to why you think this plan is bad.

Can you provide concrete answers for once?  Or just more personal
attacks with no real substance?

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org