This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[adm] Re: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
- Previous message (by thread): [adm] Re: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
- Next message (by thread): [adm] Re: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Koch
pk at DENIC.DE
Thu Nov 13 13:50:48 CET 2008
Hi Ed, > >support, with another dissenting individual, who would still not oppose > >the text going forward as a WG statement. > > Assuming I'm the dissenting individual - I had a talk with Jim actually you were the first person quoted, this reference was to Bill. > yesterday. My comments were strictly related to the words used and > how they might be interpreted, not the point being made. I.e., no > substantive argument. In the sense that editing anything means a new > cycle of review, rewording for clarification would mean that there'd > be no time for vetting, etc., and still get this to the NTIA in time > - you can say that I agree with the message being sent (if not the > exact words). Thanks for the clarification. Since this would even more contribute to the consensus already declared, I'd rather not reword our statement and hope you do not feel misrepresented. -Peter
- Previous message (by thread): [adm] Re: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
- Next message (by thread): [adm] Re: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]