Carl Trieloff wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> Last and final objection, I want to make sure I am not missing >> something... >> the contract between the spec participants is or is not public? If >> public, >> was there a link I missed? If so, can it be added to the proposal for >> completeness sake? > > I have to say partially public.
With your very detailed explanation, I grok the dynamics at work. Although I can't support the proposal until I understand all of the NDA's at work, the extent to which the project will be 'controlled' by private traffic, and by traffic they may or may not successfully influence ... ... I'm very pleased with all of the efforts to resolve entirely reasonable confusion on the part of the submittors, and fully believe the project can succeed as it addresses the remaining issues ... ... my vote is retracted, count me +/- 0 until we determine the rules by which the spec committee is playing, at which point I would likely support the proposal. But please don't let my earlier negative vote impede your progress if there's sufficient support for the proposal as-is, the -1 is reverted. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
