Suzanne,
On Oct 23, 2022, at 3:50 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> We've been told repeatedly that no one wants to engage legal analysis or
> liaison communications on a document that doesn't have WG consensus.
This appears broken.
In this specific case, the way forward appears to be predicated on
Martin Schanzenbach wrote on 2022-10-23 04:38:
On 23.10.22 10:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
...
The chairs would like to hear it if anyone has anything new to say about such a
registry on its technical merits, including specific registry policy and
operational challenges with administering it
On 23.10.22 10:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Eliot,
>
> On Oct 23, 2022, at 2:15 AM, Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 23.10.22 05:40, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>> said:
> As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It
Eliot,
On Oct 23, 2022, at 2:15 AM, Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>>
wrote:
On 23.10.22 05:40, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>> said:
As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It is
simply a matter of whether the IANA will host it. If
On 23.10.22 05:40, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Eliot Lear said:
As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It is
simply a matter of whether the IANA will host it. If the IANA does not
host it, then by shifting it elsewhere this group is actually weakening
the IANA
It appears that Eliot Lear said:
>As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It is
>simply a matter of whether the IANA will host it. If the IANA does not
>host it, then by shifting it elsewhere this group is actually weakening
>the IANA function, and that would be sad.
