Ken and all, Ken Stubbs wrote: > 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". No Ken you did not directly call Gordon a liar, but the next thing to it. You refereed to his post as "Garbage", which is a derogatory term that indirectly implies that Gordon is lying. Pot, kettle black.... Or a Rose by any other name smells the same.... > > > - snip - > > i did criticize him for posting it without verification or even an attempt > at direct verification... for the follow reason: How do you know it was not verified? > > > 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). Yet another slur... :( > > > 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. This (Rumor?), as you refer to it, has already been at least third soruced. And from our internal contacts it is now forth sourced. So it is likely to at least be mostly accurate!!! > > > 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 > >}>************************************************************************* > ** > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 __________________________________________________ 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____________________________________________
