Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

The minutes of the meeting will be posted soon. You can draw your own
conclusion on the "rough consensus" then.

But your objection to drop requirements is noted.

ps: comparing criteria for wg i-ds and WG co-chairs proposed next step
is apple and orange.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>; "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine"
<brunner@nic-naa.net>; "J. William Semich" <bill@mail.nic.nu>;
<brunner@nic-naa.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document


> James,
>
> Please compare your response to Ms. Ye, and your response to Mr.
Semich.
>
> Ms. Ye's draft's "supporters" must meet a criteria.
> Mssrs. Seng and Blanchett's rough consensus "commentors" need not.
>
> Even if Ms. Ye's draft was worth reading (IMO it is not, having done
so),
> and even if I'd blind faith in the intelligence, judgement, and humor
of
> Mssrs. Seng and Blanchett (I don't, and I get no pleasure from that),
it
> would still be a dubious proposition that either could offer anonymous
> (and possibly ficticious) personas as being sufficient to meet either
a
> test for community interest (in a draft) or community consensus (in an
act).
>
> If there really is consensus that "the IDN WG doesn't need any
requirements"
> or that "the requirements for the IDN are self-evident to the WG", or
any
> variation on the theme of "badges, we don't need no stinkin' badges",
then
> fine. So state and be done with it.
>
> Eric