Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> It is important to note that Richard was representing NSI nor were there any
> requirements we gave him. We funded his participation because he didn't
> have funding. There were no strings attached as he already pointed out. We
> didn't even give him a test to see what he might say. :)
Then why select him in particular? There are many people who don't have
funding.
Understand that I'm not suggesting Richard is now or has ever been a
paid shill for NSI. But NSI has clearly demonstrated that it will use
its extraordinary economic advantage to populate discussion groups with
people who are known to be friendly to NSI's position on proprietary
TLDs. What are the implications for ICANN's Membership Advisory
Committee?
I know that Adam Todd's trip to IFWP/Singapore was funded by NSI, but
this was ostensibly so that he could report back with tapes of the
proceedings (something he has not yet done, to the best of my
knowledge). This news about Richard's trips being funded by NSI raises
an important question: Who else has in these debates been able to
participate more actively as a consequence of NSI's selective
benevolence?
And before anyone jumps on me for lack of even-handedness, keep in mind
that I began this project looking to explain the material support that
ISOC/IETF members get from MCI, UUNET, CISCO, et al, and how that
translated into the development of the IAHC.
Craig Simon
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
