Re: [soac-mapo] Re: some source documents
- To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Re: some source documents
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:51:12 -0400
We all volunteered for this group.
Do we have a charter?
Do we have a mission?
Are we here to provide arguments that the MAPO solution in DAGv4 is sufficient
and shouldn't be messed with?
Or do we have some other purpose?
I admit I was rather shaken up when GAC resurrected the subject with the lines
that they did not understand the solutions and had not been consulted. I know
I consulted them at the time, I can't say anything about why they don't
understand it now.
So while I think it might be useful to try and explain why the DAGv4 MAPO
solution is sufficient, I do not know if that is our mission.
I should note that my arguments for DAGv4 being both necessary and sufficient
are my own and not supported by NCSG. We have not polled on it lately and I
expect we would be of mixed viewpoint. At the time that the new GTLD
recommendations were voted on, NCUC was very much against the MAPO
recommendations and made no secret of it.
Oh yeah, one other question: do we have wiki space to start stashing the