Re: [ga] Whois

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

We must strive in all earnest to not allow that to occurr here. People truly motivated by a desire to see things work well and not only in their own self interest must do better. It is now clear to me why they need a 2nd task force to "recommend" the methodology for implementation. If that goes as well as this last one, then they will need another to oversee implementation. That is a good 18 months down the road.
   
  I guess my first point was the spin put on the subject and a suggestion that we can also do that here.
   
  Eric

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Eric,
<snip>
  Unfortunately, the TF did not spend any length of time
evaluating any proposals other than those submitted by
the Task Force members. Neither did they amend their
own proposals in light of extensive legitimate
criticisms put forth through the public comment
period.

Sadly, what we are looking at is the total breakdown
of the consensus process with constituent participants
inclined only to adopt intractable entrenched
positions. 

While this is not a healthy development, we should be
taking the attitude that when faced with no consensus
whatsoever, registries/registrars should not be bound
by global rules (such as those imposed in the RAA),
but rather should be able to set their own path
forward so that the market becomes the ultimate
arbiter.

regards,
Danny


--- Hugh Dierker wrote:

> Interesting AP article.
>
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/technology/16941179.htm




____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/



 
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.