>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:56:31 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [John Charles
Broomfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From manta.outremer.com!jbroom Tue Feb 9 16:56:30 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from manta.outremer.com([209.88.69.3]) (2456 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:56:25 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: (from jbroom@localhost) by manta.outremer.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) id
SAA12548; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:05:46 -0400
>From: John Charles Broomfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Draft New Draft
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:05:45 -0400 (AST)
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "William X. Walsh"
at Feb 9, 99 12:52:17 pm
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>Not so simple. I think a more likely scenario is that most of them probably
>didn't *completely* understand what most of the message was talking about
>(either because it was out of context or because of linguistical problems).
>Note also that the message doesn't make it clear if the question is being
>asked on a personal basis or if it is expecting an oficial statement from
>that person on behalf of the ccTLD for which he is admin contact.
>
>Given that, I think it sounds very likely to find that a few/many/most of
>them would just take it as a personal question/poll asking them if they
>support RFC-1591 FULL STOP. (which obviously just about everyone does).
>
>Look at the reply that Patrick gave. It was a one word message stating
>"YES".
>I also saw a few messages with the wording:
>"XX supports RFC-1591"
>Which at least says that the guy is answering on behalf of that ccTLD, but
>is only stating the obvious (ie, that he supports RFC-1591).
>
>If I'm so wrong about all of this, how come we haven't seen a deluge of
>those 73 ccTLDs coming out and saying "John, you've got it all wrong and
>we're very happy with the iaTLD".
>Would seem to go along with the feeling that they don't know what is
>happening...
>
>Yours, John Broomfield.
>
>> OK, so you say that 70+ ccTLD managers read "The subject says it all" and
>> then just hit reply?
>>
>> Come on Mr Broomfield.
>>
>> And I notice you did not answer my comments about your misstatements on the
>> points of the 5 registries or any of the other rather salient parts of my
>> message. Very telling indeed.
>
>If I had to comment on EVERYTHING you wrote I would need a few extra hours
>per day...
>
--
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
