[dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Patrik Fältström
paf at cisco.com
Mon Nov 10 20:54:49 CET 2008
Correct, that is the reason why #9 is there. Patrik On 10 nov 2008, at 19.33, Barbara Roseman wrote: > Ed, I believe 9 addresses some of the proposed workflows published > with the NOI. It was not in either the VeriSign or ICANN proposals, > but was, I believe, in some of the other diagrams. > > -Barb > > > On 11/10/08 10:17 AM, "Edward Lewis" <Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz> wrote: > > At 8:57 +0000 11/10/08, Jim Reid wrote: > >> can I ask for your support on this latest version? > > I'd be okay with this, in general, except for two things. > > #1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it. (Why is it > there? Did someone believe there was a technical justification to > add an organization?) > > #2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements but > included some "here's a way to do it"s. But then, this point is not > critical. > >> 9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation >> to >> oversee the process of signing of the root. > > -- > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=- > Edward Lewis > +1-571-434-5468 > NeuStar > > Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. > >
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]