Kent - watch your ass dear boy. Looks look's like the ICANN kook's are
going to start the spy trip. Your no Robert Shaw. Shaw is a fool with
some diplomatic immunity. Your welcome Kent to play the fool, just
remember you have no diplomatic immunity from libel and slander.
Now Kent, when do we find out about your moon rock collection ;-)
Regards
Joe
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 10:07:25AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> >
> > On 14 October 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Jay Fenello in the news:
> > >
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/circuits/articles/14spin.html
> > >
> > >Is it relevant that someone is paid by an entity with a major
> > >financial stake in the issues?
> > >
> > >Richard Sexton and Tony Rutkowski have also acknowledged being paid
> > >consultants of NSI. All three claim that this has nothing to do with
> > >what they say -- that is, that NSI supports them because of what they
> > >have a natural inclination to say.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, Kent. Heaven forbid, someone with a major financial stake in
> > the issues should participate in forming DNS issues.
>
> As you well know, the issue is deception.
>
> > ..oh, wait, that's
> > pretty much every participant in the DNSO, isn't it?
>
> Absolutely not. From my personal knowledge: I don't have any
> financial stake. Dave Crocker doesn't. David Maher doesn't. Javier
> Sola doesn't. Roberto Gaetano doesn't. Karl Auerbach, I believe,
> has no financial stake. None of the ICANN Board, to my knowledge,
> has any financial stake in DNS issues. My impression is that *you*
> don't have a financial stake....
>
> > Kent, ICANN is nothing *but* monied interests. There's only a handful
> > of people with any actual say in the proceedings that don't have
> > a financial interest in the outcome.
>
> None of the board has a financial interest in the outcome.
>
> > Those of us who do not stand
> > to gain financially and do not currently have any kind of direct
> > say in what goes on keep trying to change that, and keep getting
> > batted down by the large-money folks.
>
> What do you mean by "direct say"? Tell me how it is, for example,
> that MCI has a "direct say". Could you point out to me where MCI
> gets to make direct vote on any ICANN policy matter?
>
> Or maybe a big TM interest, like Disney. Could you point out to me
> where we see Disney's direct vote on any ICANN policy matter?
>
> It looks to me like *every* entity goes through some number of levels
> of representation, and what you are concerned about is number of
> levels. Is that true?
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
