At 09:45 AM 6/18/99 , Joe Sims wrote: >Jay, you're back! Short retirement. Let me see if I got this straight: >you and 6 of your best friends decided that this was an important >distinction, even though it didn't exist anywhere else in the original >documents, and because you think it is an important distinction, anyone who >does not is a traitor to democracy and the American way (as defined by >Fenello/BWG/IRSC)? Glad to have you back; the discussion was starting to >trend dangerously toward substance. Do you regard this as proper conduct for the chief counsel of what purports to be the Internet's new global governance organization operating in the public interest? --tony
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Esther ... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Es... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Es... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Es... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Es... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Es... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Es... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter to Es... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Letter t... Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] The CPT- ICANN Correspondence (was: Lett... Anonymous
- [IFWP] Failing safe Anonymous
- Re: [IFWP] Failing safe Anonymous
- [IFWP] What benefit at what cost? Anonymous
