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

RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of

To: "'William X. Walsh'" <william@userfriendly.com>, "'Robert F. Connelly'" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
Subject: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:45:02 -0800
Cc: "'WG-C'" <wg-c@dnso.org>
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20000315223811.william@userfriendly.com>
Reply-To: <cambler@iodesign.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

On 16-Mar-2000 Robert F. Connelly wrote:
>> I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its
>> problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection process *at
this
>> time*.  In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a consensus on
>> the actual gTLDs to be delegated.
>
>I agree with Robert completely.

I do as well, but only because it's out of the scope of this WG to come
to consensus on the actual TLDs to be delegated. This group is tasked to
decide HOW new TLDs will be delegated, not WHICH.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
  - From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>

References:
- Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
  - From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
Next by Date: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
Next by thread: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread