Richard and all,
No reason at all. The difficult part is getting the ICANN to go along with
that as well as the NC/PNC (legitimate?) to do so also and acctually
actively participate.
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> In the names council meeting today, a motion was made seconded and carried
> that the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list should be the general expression
> of the general assembly of the dnso.
>
> Also, the point "we need greater outreach" was made by half the
> names council interim members. Some said it 3 and 4 times. Many
> others said it as well.
>
> The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list has 53 members.
>
> The IFWP list has 156 members.
>
> Now, I've been taking part on mailing lists about domain names
> and especially new domain names since before the NSF directed
> NSI to start charging for domain names roughly 4 years ago
> and in my experience the hardest part of this whole process
> has been to keep people in one place on one list.
>
> Originally there was one mailing list about new domain names,
> now there are about two dozen. This fractialization is
> counter producive and impedes forward movement.
>
> Moreso, the name of the list is less important than
> the community the list is and represents.
>
> So, it seems to me a better idea that declaring
> the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list as the regular expression
> of the general assembly of the DNSO would be to
> use the IFWP list for that purpose; it may take months
> or perhaps even a year to get the dnso list to the size
> the ifwp list.
>
> Are there any reasons why this shouldn't be done ?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
