On 9/27/07, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27-Sep-2007, at 1716, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The authors of these things should be identified in case we want to
vote them out of whatever they were voted into.
Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what these things means,
in this
The issue that arises from it is that there ought to be a requirement
that if you are going to make a proposal, claim that you have support,
etc. that we have names instead of broad statements like the one
above.
not sure i have what you're getting at, not even sure which of the two
proposed
by whom? pc chair? sc (which appointed them)? michael
dillon?
I think michael dillon is a fine choice.
Vijay, it is rude to make fun of people who are showing their senility.
Stop picking on Randy.
In any case, I would think the committee should be able to
The original intent seems to have been to provide a mandatory
participation bar, which would explain why it is coupled with the
'meet too many meetings and you're out' portion.
i believe all this is because, in the past, there was a problem with
deadwood on the pc. i think the attempt to relax
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
Proposal 2:
Shall program committee members be permitted to skip rating
presentation proposals that do not fall into their areas of
expertise?
Wording:
Change the third paragraph of Section 8.3.2 as follows:
Old version: Each member
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Nathan Ward said:
Is the older pictures based on older allocation data, or present-day data?
I assume you are refering to the labels showing to whom each block
is allocated? Those come from IANA's file at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space, which gives
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:59:53 -1000
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The REAL problems are not going anywhere for a long time, if ever.
indeed, many will be with us for a long time. but there are a bunch
we could knock off in a few years
o dual stack backbones (and it's as much the
7 matches
Mail list logo
