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

Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT

To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00c301bfa3f7$de6f02d0$4a0e379d@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 11-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> You are proposing a WG on a *policy* matter.

Not unlike everything else this and every other workgroup has done.
 
> ICANN's very own mandate says that they oversee TECHNICAL
> COORDINATION of the Internet.
> 
> How do you justify this?

That this mandate is nothing more than an illusion.

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE485jP8zLmV94Pz+IRAlbwAKCxANSEJ2ySRMfMsc7TIfQG2C5QaQCfSTmA
/RgxU14qK5cbfAbQd3n86m4=
=tU88
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
  - From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>

References:
- Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
  - From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] "It Won't Work"
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
Next by thread: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread