On Sat, 22 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 09:31:21AM -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> > Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >
> > > But I want to state that the geographic diversity has been very much
> > > the consensus from last year's IFWP process,
> >
> > Only in an "aspirational" sense. We have never agreed that this form of
> > diversity should be imposed if it will frustrate other forms, as is the case
> > with the current proposal.
>
> I'm sorry, Eric. You are misinformed. Izumi is correct: geographic
> diversity has been an absolute requirement from very early on, and is
> a component of the White paper. We spent a great deal of time in the
> DNSO meetings discussing exactly this issue.
Hi Kent,
I don't recall seeing you at any of the many IFWP meetings I attended, so
I am curious how you would know what was decided in this regard at those
meetings. My recollection is akin to Eric's. Geographic diversity was
indeed discussed and most people found it to be a valuable and necessary
component of NewCo, however there was indeed no agreement on it trumping
all other forms of representation.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com
(408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
