RE: [wg-c] Consensus call

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	As part of a set of private warning messages I've sent out over
the past couple of days, I've told two list members that further postings
on this played-out topic were grounds for temporary suspension from the
list.  So none of you should take their silence for acquiescence . . .
(And I'd appreciate it if anybody else who wants to post on this matter,
humorously or otherwise, do so off-list as well.  Thanks.)

Jon


On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Josh Elliott wrote:

> I believe that "file" was lost some time ago and is no longer on file at
> IANA/ICANN.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Josh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon
> > Higgs
> > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 1:44 AM
> > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call
> >
> >
> > At 04:49 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > >On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > > > I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not
> > posting) aren't
> > > > fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William.
> > >
> > >No Chris, I'm sure that the majority are not fooled by yours and Simon's
> > >attempts to twist history and facts to bolster claims to TLDs
> > that you self
> > >claimed, and have no right to, and have no right to expect any advanced
> > >standing to.
> >
> > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD
> > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. The NSF
> > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered:
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore
> > loser because
> > you can't have your own ccTLD?
> >
> 
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com