>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:46:30 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Einar
Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From lists.interactivehq.org!bounce-ifwp-33506 Tue Feb 2 15:46:28 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from lists.interactivehq.org([216.84.85.2]) (2831 bytes) by
ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:46:28 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from cix.org ([198.151.248.81]) by lists.interactivehq.org with
SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Tue, 02 Feb 1999 15:41:02 -0500
>Received: from paris.ics.uci.edu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [128.195.1.50])
> by cix.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA08500
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:46:26 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from nma.com by paris.ics.uci.edu id ab12606; 2 Feb 99 12:39 PST
>Received: from paris.ics.uci.edu by norn.nma.com id aa05040; 1 Feb 99 11:38 PST
>To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cc: DNSO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Consensus Call (was: Draft New Draft)
>In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:19:07 PST."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-to: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 11:38:39 -0800
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Lyris-Message-Id:
<LYR33506-68059-1999.02.02-15.41.07--list#[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Precedence: bulk
>
>Let's wait to see if it matters that INEGroup may or may not actually
>exist. If its existence is not an issue when we are done, we can
>ignore the existence controversy.
>
>If it bwcomes to be a matter of of importantce, then we will have to
>commission an invetigation of the facts to determine whether the
>INEGroup claims of its huge voting power are valid.
>
>So, this will serve as fair warning of an eventual need for INEGroup
>to support its claims with hard evidence in the event that its
>reported votes appear to put consensus in doubt.
>
>I hope that with this in mind, that we can proceed without stopping to
>validate the existence of INEGroup.
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>
>
>>From your message Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:19:07 -0800 (PST):
>}
>}On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
>}
>}> In the next two or three days INEGroup will be finishing up our
>}> suggestion for a "Consensus Draft" and will include our voting record
>}> in that report to the relative lists. Any Objections?
>}
>}I have an objection. INEGroup does not exist.
>}
>}I am doing my upmost in upholding the civil discourse rules of ORSC, and
>}the above is merely a statement of fact.
>}
>}/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>}Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
>} (tinc)
>}\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>}
>}
>
>
--
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
