Return-Path: Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([unix socket]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Cyrus v2.1.11-Mandrake-RPM-2.1.11-1mdk) with LMTP; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:01:06 +0100 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA857621DA for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 21:01:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08984-01 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 21:01:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from montage.altserver.com (montage.altserver.com [63.247.74.122]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0671F61C18 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 21:01:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from lns-p19-19-idf-82-65-134-176.adsl.proxad.net ([82.65.134.176] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1Cwn9z-0007vS-Al for harald@alvestrand.no; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:01:03 -0800 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050203200514.0441eeb0@mail.jefsey.com> X-Sender: jefsey+jefsey.com@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:19:23 +0100 To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Subject: Re: Version -06 of the IASA BCP - is this a workable version? In-Reply-To: <3CBC3A1F242ACC39791197A0@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050203000601.0689ceb0@mail.jefsey.com> <3CBC3A1F242ACC39791197A0@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1A8A103F X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - alvestrand.no X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no On 09:10 03/02/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said: >--On 3. februar 2005 00:06 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" >wrote: >>Yet the request that the following text is added in Part 4 has been >>objected by you and discussed with others, on the list and off list. The >>carefull process of deliberation is not completed, and has not lead to a >>consensus. >> >>This text is: "International: ISOC shall work with its national Chapters, >>the IAD and IAOC to document how the IETF meetings and the Internet >>standard process could benefit from the local presence, market knowledge >>and languages familiarity of these Chapters." > >Consensus does not mean unanimity. I have not seen anyone else speak out >to support your proposed addition, and have heard people speaking against it. I would not qualify it this way. Even if we listen to the echo, this makes 2/1/2. We both know that the reason why is that many are not interested because of the unfriendly and uncertain biased situation your position leads to. And because we are not in a fighting area. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2005/01/27_acfreedom.shtml The quick igovpac list (Internet Gov Pacific) was very interesting to that end: more innovative constructed technical suggestions in 15 days than in one IETF year, by people who shut-up in here. >Sometimes you're the "rough" in "rough consensus". :-) We French we name that a cactus, and a troll a "mouche du coche". Usually the cactus is right at the end of the day. jfc