off line on line

boundary="=======34B724B======="
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk

--=======34B724B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-55F5F1; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

 > On 19:46 14/09/02, James Seng said:
 > Jefsey,
 > Offline again: I really really advise you to go to www.i-d-n.net and
revise the archives we have for the > last 3 _years_.

Dear James,
I respond as received since it is in the archives.

This is because I ran an extensive review of the archives that we though
our inputs could help this WG to complete the proposed specifications
according to its charter.

I came here only to check these speciifcation were OK on a user's point of
view before they were sent to the AD. I found they were OK for the code
transposition. But that they were complex to understand, and to operate and
were not addressing our fears of babelization nor our need for a doctrine.

Since you talk about archives: we found only 3 mails in 34 months refering
to "mnemonics" and only one alluding to "multinational" matters as such.
These two topics are our main concerns: to offer the users of each local
(ie national) Internet community the mnemonics making them, in full respect
of the local IP rights and laws, feel they own their network.

You may want to consider that there should not be any response buried in
the archives at this stage. All the WG responses should be in the document.
The question is only to know if the document as such can pass the reality
test. We think it does, except on the points above.

Best Regards.
jfc

--=======34B724B=======--