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

Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of

To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Cc: WG-C <wg-c@dnso.org>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.20000316150923.00b332f0@teal.sni.net>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

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


On 16-Mar-2000 Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its 
> problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection process *at this 
> time*.  In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a consensus on 
> the actual gTLDs to be delegated.

I agree with Robert completely. 

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
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/

iD8DBQE40IFT8zLmV94Pz+IRAtLWAKDdcloytchTomwI3siLOv3yiOQBIACfXjNW
CPNJ7/5uIen5NmZrFIypsOw=
=M9rb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
  - From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>

References:
- Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of objectivity to come to bear on the subject?
  - From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p
Next by Date: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of objectivity to come to bear on the subject?
Next by thread: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread