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

Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report

To: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report
From: Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:03:59 -0500
cc: wg-c@dnso.org, brunner@world.std.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:20:24 EST." <3.0.3.32.20000319002024.02fbeee4@msen.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

Jon,

I vote "YES".

I wish the reference to Position Paper E (Pubic comments, .NAA) was explicit
that the "principles discussed above" referred to those contained in the
section "Arguments supporting the consensus position", rather than simply
next after "Arguments opposing the consensus position", but a) I should have
caught it earlier, and b) the readers, NC and ICANN Board, US DoC, etc., are
capable of drawing the correct conclusions.

Eric

References:
- [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report
  - From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report
Prev by thread: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report
Next by thread: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread