Ah Hah;-)... Yes, All this heat and length is not necessary, if only
we could foresee which brief comments are correct and on the point.
So, who do you nominate to provide us with the essence of the issues?
Perhaps we should just all agree that whatever happened with ICANN
is indeed very unfortunate and all agree to forget that IETF had
anything to do with it.
That sounds really interesting as a way to resolve the situation,
so I herewith propose seriously that we all "Just Do It!".
Nike was Right!
I will start by ending my participation now, as you recommend;-)...
I hope all others here will follow your lead, as I am doing;-)...\Stef
At 3:05 PM -0400 8/4/02, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Einar Stefferud <Steflist(_at_)THOR(_dot_)NMA(_dot_)COM> writes:
> At 8:15 AM -0400 8/4/02, Melinda Shore wrote:
> >Just because something is interesting or important or smells
> >wonderful doesn't mean that this is the correct forum for
> >discussing it. I agree with Caitlin that this is not the
> >right place to be holding a political discussion about an
> >external body.
>
> The root problem with your analysis is that the IETF/IAB had a large
> role in the establishment of ICANN and in blessing its actions.
Even were that once true (and it isn't really the case), I'd say it is
far from clear that the discussion here serves any purpose. Even if
the IETF had a potential role (which is also far from clear), it would
be unreasonable to have a discussion of this heat and length on the
main IETF list.
.pm