RE: [wg-c] Consensus call

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

Simon, I've given up on these guys. Those who have
complained about the volume here are right, and I
must apologize for being a part of it.

From now on, when claims like theirs are made, for
which clear documented evidence shows it to be
false, I'll just say, "The facts speak louder
than you do" and leave it at that.

Besides, as I've said, the arguments on this list
don't really amount to much in the grand scheme
of things. We recommend to the DNSO, and they
recommend to ICANN, and ICANN compares that with
the decisions they've already made. Those that
match, they call consensus, and those that don't,
they call consensus. No typo.

Last one on the list, please turn out the lights.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon
Higgs
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:42 PM
To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call


At 03:50 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

The farce continues. I vote "yes" and get attacked for it. Sheesh...

> > Item 1: Yes (with the reservation that nothing tangible has yet been
> > officially proposed by ICANN, only the pre-existing RFC1591 submissions)
>
>Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later
>disclaimed), and
>have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you.

Document your false claims - if you can - or stop wasting everyone's
bandwidth. Or just read this letter and notice the National Science
Foundation's official position regarding RFC1591 and new TLDs:

http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg
"The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in
accordance with Request For Comments 1591."

The evidence is overwhelmingly against you.


Best Regards,

Simon

--
DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.