Re: [wg-review] small immediate improvements to the NC
At 13:11 7/04/01 -0400, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>> Huh? Is this not the report on immediate DNSO improvents that the NC
>> to see before the 16th of april?
>Again, this report was not requested by the NC, it is going directly to the
Are we then not going to submit our suggestions for immediate improvements
to the NC?
>> Yes, it should be carefully noted, as Sotiris did already in part 2 , that
>> the consensus of the WG would certainly not want to stop at permanent
>> vote-less representatives.
>I'm glad you concur. This is crucial.
Oh, yes, of course.
Perhaps you are right not to ask for small temporary improvements, as they
may be frozen for a long time. I personally favour progress by any small
steps that will be allowed, while at the same time insisting on full
-fledged representation and *balance* in the DNSO.
Sorry for the mixup of the reports we are expected to deliver.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html