Re: [ga-org] Re: ORG.COOP follow-up (Re: [ga] .org input)

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Great point Kent,

Well shall form follow substance or substance follow form.  They have a good point originally and a good point subsequently.  Shall they be a dynamic and free flowing org. themselves or will they get bogged down in what was.  A mandate well made yesterday may well be a point properly revisited today. I just reread three posts of yours from April in exchange with Roessler which I disagreed with then(not publicly) and still do for then but agree with for now. We must go with the flow and change with the times, and on the internet that should be quick.

Kent Crispin wrote:

On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 06:50:52PM -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Wait a second the Non-Coms put out the best paperwork in the DNSO have
> Universities that already really run registries for ccTLDs or could get
> them I believe, and have a need for the revenue and are already
> organized.........

...except that the NCC charter specifically excludes any organization
that runs a registry or is a registrar, regardless of whether the
orgnization is a non-profit.   Now, of course, the same people who
insisted on this restriction are proposing that the NCC should itself
effectively be the registry for .org...

--
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
 

So what will it be stick to it because it was a good idea or adopt it because
it is a good idea?

Sincerely,
Eric

p.s. Hey what is the deal? I am lonesome and I am bad? ;-}