I really don't understand why the Names Council doesn't encourage people to
join these groups, and beg them to spend hundreds of hours in research and
logistics.
That would cut the groups down to size in a hurry. The only reason most
people want to join is because they are being denied.
Antony
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Christopher Ambler
>Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 8:16 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Rise up to the challenge.
>
>
>I sent Javier email saying that I wanted to be on working group C.
>
>He said that my "application" was accepted, and he'd let me know if
>I was on it.
>
>I then was contacted by an individual who said that he was just
>told he's on the working group.
>
>I then was contacted by a second individual who told me the same
>thing, and that the working group was closed because there were
>too many people for, as he put it, "meaningful progress."
>
>I sent Javier email asking about this. No response for a week.
>
>I re-sent my email.
>
>Javier told me that nobody had been selected yet. This does not
>agree with the two separate people I talked to who said they
>were admitted. Javier mentioned that nobody would be
>selected until the NC meeting. This, also, flew in the face of
>what I'd been told by people who had been told they'd been
>selected and that I had not.
>
>I'm content to wait and see. The working group will be just
>like the DNSO, anyway, I suspect.
>
>--
>Christopher Ambler
>Personal Opinion Only, of course
>This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
>who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email
>----- Original Message -----
>From: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 5:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Rise up to the challenge.
>
>
>
>
>Yes, I was going to ask this also, because from what I am hearing from
>the meeting today, no one was refused.
>
>This doesn't seem to jive with the facts.
>
>So are those saying this in the meeting being disingenuous?
>
>
>On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:04:57 +0200, Roberto Gaetano
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Christopher,
>>
>>Am I understanding correctly, and you mean that you have been refused the
>>possibility to join DNSO Working Group C on new gTLDs?
>>If so, by whom and on which basis?
>>
>>Regards
>>Roberto
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Christopher Ambler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 6:08 PM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Rise up to the challenge.
>>>
>>> > In fact, we recognize the authority of ICANN, and we assume that, as
>>> there
>>> > are accredited Registrars, there will be accredited Registries, and
>>> gTLDs
>>> > will be allocated to these (accredited) Registries following a method
>to
>>> be
>>> > determined.
>>> > I assume that the DNSO will provide a recommendation in this sense. In
>>> fact,
>>> > a working group on new gTLDs is already being formed.
>>>
>>> A group for which I, as a representative of the longest-standing
>>> prospective
>>> registry, was told, at first, that my "application" would be considered,
>>> and
>>> then that my contribution was not necessary.
>>>
>>> The DNSO is a captured entity, whos results as passed on to ICANN will
>>> be as predictable as the outcome of the IAHC process. And as similar.
>>>
>>> Christopher
>
>
>--
>William X. Walsh
>General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
>The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
>to every time you have something to whimper about.
>
>
>
