David, Harold and all,
I am in agreement with both you, David and Harold as well.
It seems though, as you have pointed out before David, that the
DNSO NC is not. To me, as the SERVANTS of the DNSO
GA, this seems rather odd... So, as you suggest Harold, it
would be nice to say 'It is so", but it is not at present. Therefore,
we have a quandary, don't we? One that is not difficult to
resolve, but as a group the DNSO NC must be willing to
acknowledge that this quandary exists, before an arrived
at solution can began to develop.
Thank you both for your thoughts and suggestions, they were
reveling and quite excellent IMHO. >;)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Harold and everybody else,
>
> It was suggested some time ago after I did yet another review of the
> ICANN Membership list, that as suggestion very similar was made
> for ICANN to consider doing this themselves. Nothing ever came of that.
> I wonder why, as do many of our [INEGroup] members. If I recall
> the several exchanges I read through on the ICANN Membership
> list correctly, Kent Crispin, now (DNSO Voting Watchdog) had
> serious sounding objections to this. I, along with many of our [INEGroup]
> members also wonder why this is so, and how interesting it is that Kent
> Crispin is now a (DNSO Voting Watchdog). As is recommended
> by the IETF, sending keys to non-CA is discouraged.
>
> But I would agree with you Harold, there is more need to be trusting of
> each other, rather than not so. But also given what I have only lightly
> touched upon above, it is easy to see how difficult that can be sometimes
> unless there is some other corrections made first. First things first
> you know! >;) So, when those corrections are underway, which I
> along with our [INEGroup] spokesman see these corrections some of
> which we have outlined are taken, it would be likely that More trust
> can become possible.
>
> David "Dude" Jenson
> INEGroup-East Director
>
> In a message dated 11/27/99 4:43:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << We seem to know that:
>
> - Some of us have PGP keys. Some don't.
> - The NC has (probably rightly) rejected the use of PGP keys for general
> purpose verification of existence.
> - We definitely have the need for more reasons to trust each other
>
> why don't those of you who have a PGP key send it to the following address
> (that I've just created):
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> and we'll see how much that tells us?
> A gram of experiment can tell us more than a ton of arguments, sometimes....
> >>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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
