On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 06:15:08PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
> >> Hi Kent,
> >>
> >> So, you would support the policy facilitation
> >> process as defined in the Paris draft if . . .
> >
> >> 1) there were time limits on the combined research
> >> committee/fair hearing panel appeal process, and
> >>
> >> 2) if no consensus was reached within that time
> >> frame, it could be forwarded to ICANN as such?
> >
> >
> >No.
>
>
> In that case, Kent, I suggest that you stop wasting
> everyone's time discussing trees, when in actuality,
> you live in another forest ;-)
Not sure what you mean there -- the forest that doesn't support the
Paris draft?
> As for the rest of your note, even if the whole world
> supported the BMW draft (and they don't), I'd say you
> were wrong.
Wrong about what? I said 1) I don't support the Paris Draft (no
surprise there, I presume? -- and, while I might be wrong about what I
support, it seems unlikely); 2) I would rather operate from the WMB
draft (Again, I could be wrong about how I would rather operate, but
that also seems unlikely).
As far as the relative support levels, I tried to be objective and
fairly careful about my facts -- I didn't claim that the whole world
supported the WMB application...
> We DON'T need a powerful Names Council,
Oh -- I agree totally. That's why there isn't one in the WMB
draft...for some reason you seem to have fixated on the idea
that a "powerful" Names Council is part of the WMB application, but
it's not.
> and we DO need a (general/at large/individual/pick
> your term) membership.
Actually, if you review the history, you will find that I have
consistently supported an at large membership. It's an issue in
which I didn't prevail. I actually would prefer that there be an
at-large membership, but it's not life and death, you know -- there
are *many* ways that this all could be made to work.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
