On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:24:35 -0700, Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>At 06:59 PM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>This wasn't directed towards me but I will put my comments in anyway.
>>
>>You have it straight. This situation is okay because NSI's function is to
>>perform a task under specifications outlined in a cooperative agreement or
>>other contract. NSI's input is via this mechanism. If NSI hires a
>>contractor to set up their internal network should this company get a seat
>>on NSI's board?
>>
>>I don't think NSI should be completely excluded from representation.
>
>Well I do, for the reasons you outline below. The fox has been in the
>chicken coop long enough.
>
Well, no solution that includes NSI even be IN the process is
acceptable to you. This shows nothing but a refusal to accept
reality, and presents an obstacle for you to be a productive
contribution to a process that could fix some of the issues you
advocate.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
