Mr. Sola,
I am curious as to why you would not want to be included in the very debate
in which you are to be participating as an active member. The DNSO
discussion list is not, at least yet, the defacto forum for these issues.
The IFWP list is. You choose not to participate in any real discourse with
the community.
I tire quickly of your Napoleonic nature. Your stature shrinks with every
passing day.
A valued professional would make sure of facts and engage in some fruitful
debate. Your lack of professional approach, sniping remarks and self
agrandization show your lack of value.
Live with that, sir.
Gene Marsh
+++
Hi Gordon Cook, you wrote on 6/27/99 10:29:59 AM
>Don,
>
>Thank you for the clarification.
>
>My advice is that if you want accuracy, all you have to do is to be as
>transparent as you are asking us to be. That way we can be accurate. Quid
>pro quo. Tell us who of the IFWP/DNSO players work for NSi and who are
>those for whom you have paid plane tickets to the IFWP/DNSO meetings during
>the last year. Tell us what organizations you subsidize. There will be no
>accuracy problems after that.
>
>I find preposterous that you should be the one to talk about lack of
>objectivity, when you put the interests of one single company above the
>interests of almost 200,000,000 internet users.
>
>No Javier, you are wrong. It is ICANN who claims to represent the
>interests of 200,000,000 internet users. yet formulates all its policy in
>secret and acts in the interests of a small elete as it attempts to become
>a world wide internet regulatory body that is the judge jury and
>executioner for all of Domain name space.
>
>Lets get one thing very clear, in standing up to you network solutions is
>protecting *MY* interests against the attack of the unaccountable junta
>called ICANN. I am very very thankful that NSI exists an d has enough
>financial strength to fight the ICANN/ISOC attack.
>
>Disclaimer: NSI has been a subscriber to my newsletter for the past four
>years. This represents the only income that I have ever received from
>them. So attack away javier.
>
>
>So far, all that any member of this committee has done is to put in place
>the structures of the Names Council and the working groups for open
>participation and assuring that all voices are heard. I understand that you
>might see this structure as lacking objectivity, as its operability goes
>against you interests, but few other people will understand it the same
>way.
>
>Javier
>
>At 19:41 26/06/99 -0400, Telage, Don wrote:
>>Javier, I seldom resort to list banter. Unlike many, I'm not so thrilled
>>with hearing the sound of my own voice (if you excuse the mixed medium
>>reference.) However, I'm so tired of your inaccuracies, that I feel
>>compelled to reply. Richard Sexton is not an employee of NSI, and NSI is
>not
>>his company. Even if he were, so what? Do you mention the employer or
>>affiliation. of every person who posts? In fact, as you know, NSI
belongs
>>to tens of thousands of people and companies worldwide They have invested
>in
>>it as they have in many other publicly traded companies. As you also know,
>>Richard has done several technical projects as a consultant to NSI
>including
>>to help us meet the 6 month schedule that our agreement with DOC required.
>>With his and others' help we achieved that objective, and yet maintained
>all
>>of our other business goals. He, unlike most of the people in this debate,
>>is a top technical Internet practitioner, and you know that too, but you
>>persist in your misinformation and denigration campaign. Finally, although
>>you probably find it inconceivable, his opinions in this debate are his
>>alone and have never been influenced by anyone at NSI. Please be accurate,
>>even if you must project your lack of objectivity. don
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Javier SOLA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 1999 3:30 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [council] Re: [IFWP] regular exprssion of
>>the general assembly of the dnso
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> I have received this message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Please remove my e-mail from the ifwp list immediatly. I
>>have not
>> subscribed to such list and do not wish to be spammed by it.
>>I would like
>> to remind you that, as an employee of Network Solutions,
>>your company is
>> responsible for your actions.
>>
>> Please do the same thing for everybody you have added
>>against their will.
>>
>> At 03:40 26/06/99 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>> >So, it seems to me a better idea that declaring
>> >the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list as the regular expression
>> >of the general assembly of the DNSO would be to
>> >use the IFWP list for that purpose; it may take months
>> >or perhaps even a year to get the dnso list to the size
>> >the ifwp list.
>> >
>> >Are there any reasons why this shouldn't be done ?
>>
>> As you have just showed us, the managment of the IFWP cannot
>>be trusted. No
>> wonder there are so many people in it, they are added
>>against their will.
>>
>> Javier
>>
>>
>
>****************************************************************
>The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK
>Report
>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Exec summaries, glossary etc
>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://cookreport.com
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
>Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
>****************************************************************
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm very happy @.HOME
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
