Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 20 September 1999, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:


>> With all due respect Randy, I believe what the co-chair of the group is
>> saying is that:  We, as co-chairs, have declared there is consensus on
>> the issue.
>
>same co-chair that declared an extremely bogus consensus in wg-a.a.

I see.  So, this process is completely invalid only when the results
produced don't mesh with your desired outcome?  Convenient.

That's my second post for today.  Per WG rules, I'll say no more til
tomorrow.  You'd be wise to do the same, Randy.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org