hello stef:
i would please request that you take a second look at my message (which was
sent out to all the lists i could think of)
which i have put directly below in quotes:
"Gordon & All:
LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ABOUT THIS !!!
THIS ANANYMOUS ALLEGATION IS A BLATANT LIE !
i also believe it is incredibly irresponsible and unprofessional for you
Gordon to publish unfounded anonymous garbage like this to the lists."
as you can CLEARLY see stef, i never called gordon a liar at all. i did
exactly what he asked me to do and that was to respond to his request and
label "this ananymous allegation a lie".
not gordon... the "allegation"...
i did criticize him for posting it without verification or even an attempt
at direct verification... for the follow reason:
gordon holds himself out to be a professional journalist. no journalist
would ever circulate this kind of rumor without attempting to
verify,verify,verify. (unless you want to classify gordon with hedda hopper
& louella parsons).
he made no attempt to contact me to ask for verification either. he has my
e-mail address, knows who and my position in CORE and has communicated with
me before so he can't plead ignorance.
one last point...
let me ask you stef... how can i be any more UNEQUIVOCAL in my response. he
sent the e-mail out at 2:30 am and i responded at approx 8:am to every
maillist in sight within 10 minutes of reading it.
hoping that the future finds us with the opportunity to resolve what Mr.
Kidder refers to as a "bipolar dilema" and find the middle way between each
other's respective "rights".
ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 3:18 PM
Subject: [ifwp] Re: rumor: dnso.org and trademark community have cut a deal
>Hi Ken, and all --
>
>DO NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER!
>
>You (DNSO.ORG and ICANN) have a simple choice.
>
>Either ignore such rumors and let them fester their way around the
>community, or be happy that someone has the guts to surface them so
>you can deny them straight away.
>
>By becoming angry at the messenger, you only discredit your own
>denials by calling the messenger a liar.
>
>He only reported a rumor, as a rumor, and suggested that a denial is
>in order if the runor is false.
>
>For what it is worth, it was third sourced to me before Gordon
>surfaced it in public. As such, it was gaining a lot of currency, and
>needed to be confirmed or denied in public.
>
>I certainly hope it is false, but given your reponse, and that of
>others who appear to be dodging and equivocating, I have to say that I
>am not yet convinced of its falsity.
>
>So, please just address the rumor, and be thankful for the opportunity
>to openly and straightforwardly counter it with your denial.
>
>The other alternative is for you to shut down the surfacing of these
>rumors and thus feed the festering distrust that has built up over the
>last 2-3 years of closed door and secret dealings in these matters.
>
>This is the price that a lack of openness will always produce in the
>Internet, just because it is so very hard to seal up information in t
>eInterent so that no one can leak it. And, it is the nature of leaks
>that they beccome distorted rumors in due course.
>
>This rumor has too many credible sources to be ifgnored, but if you
>want to ignore it, that is your choice, of which we can only take
>note.
>
>After all, it is your choice. Fur Shure;-)...
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>
>>From your message Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:11:36 -0500:
>}
>}Gordon & All:
>}
>}LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ABOUT THIS !!!
>}
>}THIS ANANYMOUS ALLEGATION IS A BLATANT LIE !
>}
>}i also believe it is incredibly irresponsible and unprofessional for you
>}Gordon to publish unfounded anonymous garbage like this to the lists.
>}
>}
>}Ken Stubbs
>}Chairman - Executive Committee
>}Internet Council of Registrars (CORE)
>}
>}-----Original Message-----
>}From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>}To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>}Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 2:42 AM
>}Subject: [ifwp] rumor: dnso.org and trademark community have cut a deal
>}
>}
>}>hello mike and esther:
>}>
>}>What follows came to my attention tonight. I realize that until it is
>}>second and maybe even third sourced it is just a rumor.
>}>
>}>Is it?
>}>
>}>I am sure you would like to be able to come back and assure all of us
that
>}>this "disturbing news" paragraph below is just totally false.
>}>
>}>can you do that?
>}>
>}>
>}>
>}>
>}>------- Forwarded Message
>}>
>}>From: anonymous
>}>Subject: Disturbing news
>}>
>}>I just finished speaking to someone who knows what's going on.
>}>Confidentially, he told me that the dnso.org group has taken the
>}>trademark people in for 2 reasons.
>}>
>}>First, they add legitimacy to the dnso.org application. They also
>}>have made claims that they have big companies and a lot of money
>}>behind them, and they've already spoken with a few ICANN members who
>}>are telling them that the dnso.org application will be approved.
>}>
>}>Secondly, their intention is to get as many of their people on the
>}>'names council' as possible, and then pass a resolution that no new
>}>TLDs shall be added until the WIPO study is complete. After that
>}>delay, they intend to start slowly, introducing one TLD at a time,
>}>starting with CORE, and passing a resolution that the 60-day wait be
>}>reinstated. CORE has already agreed to this.
>}>
>}>My source tells me that this is already a done deal, and that the big
>}>money and big companies behind it won't allow anything else to happen.
>}>
>}>... From a concerned party ...
>}>
>}>------- End of Forwarded Message
>}>*************************************************************************
**
>}>The COOK Report on Internet What Happened to the White Paper?
>}>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ICANN a Sham. (updated 10/25/98)
See
>}>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)
>}http://www.cookreport.com/whorules.html
>}>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 6 years of COOK Report,
how
>}to
>}>subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at
>}http://www.cookreport.com
>}>*************************************************************************
**
>}>
>}>__________________________________________________
>}>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____________________________________________
>}>
>}>
>}
>
>__________________________________________________
>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____________________________________________
>
>
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
