RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
|>Behalf Of Roeland Meyer
|>Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:02 AM
|>To: 'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.'; Roeland Meyer; Bret Busby; Joop
|>Teernstra
|>Cc: sotiris@hermesnetwork.com; wg-review@dnso.org;
|>gusion@gusion.com; YJ
|>Park (MINC)
|>Subject: RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
|>
|>
|>I don't think that we can, at this time present a considered
|>version of Y, on the polling booth. The documents I have presented
are a
|>good start, or a good strawman, but they are not perfect and they
need group
|>input/buy-in, before they can be presented on a polling list.
|>
|>I think that it would be a mistake to try, at this time. First, let
us
|>consider that we need to go there. Then we figure out the way.

Personally I consider it a mistake to give up an abolish such a
structure.  Re-structuring is a much more attractive option.  I have
not seen much along these lines however.  It all seems to be either
they remain or they go.

Why aren't alternatives being considered?

Dassa.

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html