Kent Crispin a écrit:
>
> On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 04:10:22PM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> > It was finally accepted by Don Heath (who seemed to have grown tired
> > of Maher/POC/CORE shenanigans) but was rejected by David Maher. The
> > only thing Maher would accept was the immediate designation of
> > himself as an NCDNHC Names Council member. All other proposals for
> > compromise were rejected by him. (Don't forget that he had nominated
> > himself for the NC before the Berlin meeting, for which he was
> > severely reproved by people on ISOC's own lists). Thus the deadlock
> > at the end of the day.
>
> You, as always, are economical with the truth.
What I stated in my post is precisely what occurred in Berlin. You
were not there. You were not present at any of the discussions. You
know absolutely nothing of what went on. How you, who were not
involved in any way, dare come out now on this list to tell people
what happened is beyond all understanding. I suppose it is simply
more of the same thing that we must expect from you and the other
CORE people, that is, your continual tactic of telling lies, the
bigger the better, in the hope that it will leave people speechless.
You aren't intelligent enough to invent subtle tactics for
perpetrating your maneuvers and manipulations, so you just lie, and
you have discovered by experience, as even brutes will eventually,
that the bigger the lie the more astonished people are and the
harder it is for them to reply to it.
Again: you were not in Berlin, you were not present at the NCDNHC
meeting, you did not participate in the negotiations, and you have
no knowledge of what actually occurred. Even if you had a desire to
tell the truth, which it is apparent you do not, you have no way of
knowing the truth. So you lie, and will lie again, and will continue
to lie, because you are too stupid to do anything else and can only
go on lying, and lying, and lying until, you hope, your adversaries
have given up in despair at having any affect on you and your
interminable lying.
> Here is the actual
> ISOC/POC supported version of the disputed section:
>
> Until August 31, the NCDNHC shall be governed by an interim
> committee of five officers to be selected by nominations, to be
> made on or before June 21, and an election to be conducted on June
> 25 by email ballots of the Founding Members.
<snip>
This is not the proposal put forth by David Maher and Don Heath in
Berlin. What they wanted was to immediately elect officers by
balloting the adherent member organizations. Since ISOC had the
larger number of adherent organizations (due to the fact that ISOC
was the organization present with the largest number of
organizational members, and because ISOC lied when organizing for
the NCDNHC and pretended it was the only organizer, rather than
explaining to prospective members that there was a choice of
guidelines proposals, as the ICIIU did), ISOC felt assured that they
would win all the elections for interim officers and then be able to
control the membership policy.
This would be equivalent to, for example, Nominet controlling all
the officers and Names Council members of the Registrars
Constituency simply because it was bigger than the other registrars
(if that were the case), or PSINet having all the officers and Names
Council members of the ISP constituency because it was the biggest
ISP (if it were). But that is clearly not a selection procedure that
would ensure participation by all stakeholders, and it is not how
the constituencies have been formed. On the contrary, all
participants were given an equal voice, and the organizations who
have been the most involved and who went to the trouble of drafting
guidelines proposals and signing up member organizations were given
the opportunity to organize the constituencies as equal partners.
This is what has been done in all the constituencies except one -
the NCDNHC. There, the largest organization - ISOC - has refused to
play ball with the others, in an attempt to dominate and control the
constituency completely. And CORE sent its members to the formation
meeting on Tuesday, people with no legitimate claim to participation
in the non-commercial constituency, in order to disrupt the meeting
and keep the legitimate non-commercial organizations, represented by
the ICIIU and the ACM, from being able to conduct their business.
> So, Mr Sondow, you claim you worked with those people who signed up
> with you. Do you have an archive of the mailing list where you
> discussed this stuff, so we can all examine your open and transparent
> processes?
I do have an archive of most of the correspondence between the ICIIU
and its supporting organizations, but I am under no obligation to
reveal it to you. You have not been designated the policeman of this
process. Just the opposite, you have no place in it at all. You are
not a non-commercial organization, not an officer of ICANN, not
anything at all, and never participated in the formation of this
constituency.
The ICIIU presented its guidelines proposal to each and every one of
its supporters before posting it and sending it to ICANN, something
I doubt very much that ISOC did. But I don't intend to prove it to
you, because you have no place at all in this affair, and we are not
obliged to answer any of your insinuations.
> Could you point us to the web pages of REDI? A cyberlaw
> association must surely have a web page, but I have searched
> altavista, and don't find anything.
You can't find REDI's webpages? You are an incompetent fool, aren't
you?
> Or could you point us to the web
> page of COMTELCA? A "telecommunications and networking clearinghouse"
> must surely have a web presence -- could you tell me where it is?
You couldn't find COMTELCA's website? Keep looking. Even an
incompetent nitwit like you will find it eventually.
The bottom line on this nonsense of yours is that you have no
credibility to interrogate anyone, after what you did to the people
who went to Monterrey to try and form the DNSO. I'm talking about
your dirty, lying trick to re-write the Monterrey DNSO consensus
draft behind their backs. You betrayed everyone who went to
Monterrey, and are single-handedly responsible for the division of
the incipient DNSO and all the subsequent rivalry and waste of time
and energy to patch it back up.
Of all the dishonest criminals who have disrupted the White Paper
process, you are probably the worst. So shameful are the things you
have done, you don't dare show your face at the ICANN meetings. Yet
your own sense of right and wrong is so undeveloped that you can't
see the futility of making these pointless postings, sticking your
nose into what doesn't concern you.
No one takes you seriously, Kent, except perhaps on technical
issues. On anything concerning process, you are an uneducated if not
demented personality. Your best option would be to stay out of
politics altogether, but you are too egotistical and too stupid to
even realize what is best for you.
Go right ahead and post whatever slurs and lies you wish. I won't
answer you again.
