Re: [registrars] Discussion of Motion on TF 1&2 report.
- To: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] Discussion of Motion on TF 1&2 report.
- From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:59:51 -0500
- Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, RC Voting Members <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
Robert F. Connelly wrote:
Think about this, I've expected right along that we would find very
little that we could like in the TF 3 report. In my opinion, it will
not be well taken if we cannot find anything in any of the reports which
we can accept as written.
WRT the TF3 Report - there isn't one. If and when there is, we'll have
to form a position on it.
WRT to the TF1/2 Reports - we must continue to work with the rest of the
community to ensure that we arrive at a position that we can all live
with, but that doesn't mean that we have to settle for a position that
we can't possibly live with.
Are you proposing that the Constituency endorses the TF1/2 Reports?
Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org