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

Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT

To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
From: david@aminal.com
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:02:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20000411112918.02f92368@msen.com>; from weinberg@mail.msen.com on Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 11:29:18AM -0400
Mail-Followup-To: wg-c@dnso.org
References: <3.0.3.32.20000411112918.02f92368@msen.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org



PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE	
 
Yes

Because various registry business models may imply different
levels of technical capability, it is reasonable to get a
sample during the testbed.


PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO

No (not technical management)
 
PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE

No (already being addressed in the appropriate forum)



David Schutt
Speco, Inc.

'Vote early, and often!'

References:
- [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
  - From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
- [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
  - From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>

Prev by Date: [wg-c] Administrivia (041400.1)
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
Next by thread: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread