Re: [wg-c] current version of WG-C report

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

What? Someone pass me some of what he's smoking, or give
me a translator.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Brunner" <brunner@world.std.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] current version of WG-C report


> Jon,
> 
> I suggest just characterizing the public comment as supporting Position
> Paper E, a specific instance of Position Papers D and A, unless you are
> of the opinion that Position Papers D and A can't take on specific form.
> 
> Calling it a different issue is just revisiting the position first
> argued by Milt, then his chorus, that no proper action can be specific
> first and generalized subsequent, but only considered in WG-C in the
> general case, formalized into some "objective criteria", then applied
> with no further discretionary ICANN participation.
> 
> Please don't go down the road that "nothing can be known, the market
> forces will answer everything".
> 
> In the final para please note that some members of the WG oppose the
> proposition that the selection mechanism should exclude the ICANN
> Board, or the United States from originating  new gTLD proposals.
> 
> Two modest changes.
> 
> Cheers,
> Eric