Mikki and ll, We agree with Kents statement as well. It is however unfortunate that Kent and the DNSO.ORG bunch don't practice what they preach... Mikki Barry wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 06:45:00PM +0000, William Allen Simpson wrote: > >[...] > >> > >> Perhaps one of the first DNSO NC policy proposals to ICANN could be an > >> affirmation of RFC-1591? > > > >I think that would be fine. To amplify what you said earlier, the > >problem here is that people are trying to lock policy into the DNSO > >bylaws, which is in my opinion an intrinsically bad idea. Instead, > >we should be concentrating on a structure that allows the policy to > >be debated, and ultimately decided. Trying to build in policy in > >advance is simply a devisive bad idea, in my opinion. > > > >What Antony is trying to do is, in my opinion, identical to (for > >example) the Trademark people insisting that the DNSO bylaws commit > >to the WIPO guidelines. > > I agree with Kent and hope that the world does not end as a result :-) Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams 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 __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
