[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 ]