Gene,
You wrote:
Yes, but you adroitly miss addressing the other issue...
Richard Sexton
also brought up the question of additional gTLD DNSO NC
representatives.
That issue has never been properly addressed.
True, but the purpose of my post was not to give a comprehensive summary of
Gene Marsh wrote:
Then there was CLEARLY no consensus at Berlin for any topic I
witnessed,
except in favor of the IDNO.
Obviously we were at different meetings ;).
At the one I attended (non-com constituency, with participation of to-be
individual constituency), even a straw poll was
Actually, over the past couple years I have learned to respect Roberto as a
reliable source. We do not agree on everything, but he sincerely tries to
be objective and he also tries to find solutions instead of just arguing.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Gene Marsh [SMTP:[EMAIL
Did those two representatives participate in any pNC meetings, or did
the resignation preclude that event?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Incidentally, may I remind that there were also two persons elected
independently to the Name Council by two different Constituencies that
worked for
Chuck,
Consider the source.
Gene...
At 09:39 AM 8/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
"Poor management of the testbed by NSI?" I know that there have been lots
of emotionally based claims to this effect but would be interested to see
some objective facts.
Chuck Gomes
-Original Message-
From:
At 04:06 PM 8/9/99 +0200, you wrote:
Joop,
You wrote:
Thanks for aiding my memory, Roberto.
But if applause indicates consensus, then we also have consensus on
admitting the IDNO constituency to the DNSO.
Unfortunately, applause by itself does not indicate consensus.
A large majority
Joop,
You wrote:
After the next's day's session with the Board and following deliberation
in
camera the Board came with it's resolution to change the bylaws and limit
NSI to one seat.
I do not recall any other instance that "consensus" was asked or measured
on the gTLD seats.
Let any
At 01:59 PM 9/08/1999 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The subject of the testbed, and the poor management thereof by NSI,
triggered again the debate on the gTLD Constituency. I believe that it was
George Conrades to mention that, if NSI was not willing to autolimit their
participation to the
"Poor management of the testbed by NSI?" I know that there have been lots
of emotionally based claims to this effect but would be interested to see
some objective facts.
Chuck Gomes
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 8:00
Hi, Chuck, how are you?
You wrote:
"Poor management of the testbed by NSI?" I know that there
have been lots
of emotionally based claims to this effect but would be
interested to see
some objective facts.
Thanks for correcting me.
Re-reading the sentence I realize that it gives the
At 10:19 AM 8/9/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I know that the complaints Ken and Richard Lindsay (among others) made
were real, as at that time I was a member of CORE and participated to the
testbed.
Roberto,
I think we both observed these developments.
It's not apparent that anyone has
Tony,
You wrote:
Especially considering Roberto was at the last testbed
advisory committee meeting and I don't recall that either
he or anyone else made such an assertion... :-)
I was only at the "first" testbed meeting in Reston, when the testbed
programme was described to us by NSI.
Tony wrote:
What's been bothersome is how the NDA - which
was meant to protect all testbed participants
against snipping public remarks - has been used against
NSI, with constant innuendos that all
problems arose only from NSI, and that
somehow NSI wasn't responsive, when this plainly
was
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote:
Karl and Patrick,
The "consensus" in Berlin was so rough, that I can still see my abrasions.
Joop,
Thank you for the view of what occured in Berlin.
Even had there been consensus in Berlin, which, from your account there
wasn't, the far more
At 11:11 AM 8/9/99 , Ivan Pope wrote:
Oh, come ON. NSI imposed an NDA on what was
supposed to be a public learning
process. It doesn't take much to work out that it was imposed to ensure
that
it is as hard as possible for newcomers to compete.
I fail to see that. The NDA seemed intended to
Real and accurate are not the same.
Chuck
BTW - I'm doiing fine Roberto. How's the new job.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 10:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tony,
What's been bothersome is how the NDA - which
was meant to protect all testbed participants
^^^
against snipping public remarks - has been used against
NSI, (...)
When NSI uses confidentiality agreements and performance bonds to
slow down the access of new
Chuck and all,
I tend to agree. Some FACTS that can be substantiated would be
refreshing on Roberto's part. Unfortunately he has rarely been
forthcoming with FACTS, however very liberal in propagating
rumor of one flavor or another...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Poor management of the
At 04:06 PM 9/08/1999 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joop,
You wrote:
Thanks for aiding my memory, Roberto.
But if applause indicates consensus, then we also have consensus on
admitting the IDNO constituency to the DNSO.
Unfortunately, applause by itself does not indicate consensus.
A
Monday, August 09, 1999, 11:03:35 AM, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And making semantic distinctions does do not anything to refute the
complaints, either.
However, frank and open discussion of the facts does.
Dave,
I find it rather interesting that you claim to stand for frank
20 matches
Mail list logo
