I am, yet again, impressed by the number of CC's you sent this
to. Hardly worth the effort, if you ask me. And them, probably. And,
even if paste in your whole address book, it can hardly be classified
a proposal, so I have removed the proposal@dnso.ORG address.
In message <36A280C6.786D3670@ix.netcom.com>, jeff Williams writes:
> How are the DNSO.ORG measuring their "Consensus". What are the
> proofs of "Consensus"? Does the DNSO.ORG have any bona fides? IF
> so have the been posted to this list or any list for that matter?
> Maybe they are on a web site? IF so which one and where?
Even the most well meaning person will fail to make the connection
between the issue of a difference of opinion in interpreting RFC1591,
to which Mr Gaetano and I are not only entitled to, but also
qualified, and your definition of DNSO.ORG's consensus.
> The reason I ask these questions is that the claim that the INTA is
> supporting DNSO.ORG is patently false, and we (INEGroup) have 84
> members on INTA that support our position. An that is just for
> starters. The ICC US branch in Colorado inform me that there is no
> such stance on the par to the ICC in support of the DNSO.ORG either.
Thank you for clearing this up :-)))-O
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> > > >So, in practice, should AFNIC go out of business tomorrow,
> > > >who will decide who will pick up the business of .fr?
> >
> > You know that very well, whoever applies at IANA/ICANN with the most
> > consensus of the "significantly interested parties". And that's how it
> > should be.
> >
> > It is a service *TO* the community.
el