At 07:17 PM 6/26/99 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>> 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 ?
>
>The IFWP has been an open forum for discussing the different ways
>in which the Internet might evolve, and in particular the way in
>which IANA would be replaced. As far as I can see the DNSO
>represents one particular faction in that discussion, and that
>faction does not represent openness. Nor it is by no means
>clear that ICANN and the DNSO are the final outcome of this process.
>
>If you hand over this list to the DNSO, you betray a trust.
I agree with you 100%. I'm just saying why bother with a new
list that only 53 poeple subscribe to and 13 post to be
the opinions of the general assembly of the dnso. Why not
just recognize the fact that list list has a far greater
technical, legal and administrative diversity ("a good thing")
and take the comments here to, n practical terms, represent
the general expression of people who are interested in
domain issues, whch some may label the dnso.
Please rest assured I would never make any unliateral
decsions about this list. I was just floating an idea
that I thought would serve both parties well.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
