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

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Humbolt County is just a few hundred miles south of your position.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Ambler
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 2:02 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] current version of WG-C report
> 
> 
> 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
>