Esther, you operate entirely in secret and only go public when the reslts
of the operation is known ICANN has done one thing and said another
that there is no reason that anyone who has observed this closely should
trust your word.
At 5:18 PM 5/21/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>For the r
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Lovell writes:
> At 02:01 PM 5/22/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Lovell writes:
> >
> >> >But then that does confirm my opinion of the second oldest profession
> >> >in the world.
> >
> >> Hey, Dr. Lisse:
> >>
> >> Stuff it.
> >>
At 02:01 PM 5/22/99 +0100, you wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Lovell writes:
>
>> >But then that does confirm my opinion of the second oldest profession
>> >in the world.
>
>> Hey, Dr. Lisse:
>>
>> Stuff it.
>>
>> Dr. Lovell
>
>Hey, Dr Lovell.
>
>But the only difference is that la
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Lovell writes:
> >But then that does confirm my opinion of the second oldest profession
> >in the world.
> Hey, Dr. Lisse:
>
> Stuff it.
>
> Dr. Lovell
Hey, Dr Lovell.
But the only difference is that lawyers get more money for the same
work.
el
At 09:44 AM 5/22/99 +0100, you wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]@esther>, Esther
>Dyson writes:
>
>> For the record, Joe was talking about two different things. But why
>> does all this matter so much anyway? who phoned whom, etc. etc.
>
>It doesn't matter at all, you are quite right. What DO
Greg,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
> Frank Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The real real question is:
>
> > "Why can't we vote for our representatives? Why do you have the power to
> > make decisions for the whole Internet?"
>
> Just as an observation, if ISOC fo
Greg,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
> If this is the case, this is bad for the IFWP process (and email in
> particular as a step towards participatory online Internet
> governance), if it actually could have had more of an impact on
> ICANN.
The IFWP process was dead long
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]@esther>, Esther Dyson writes:
> For the record, Joe was talking about two different things. But why
> does all this matter so much anyway? who phoned whom, etc. etc.
It doesn't matter at all, you are quite right. What DOES matter is
that he seems to have stated unde
Greg and all,
SOmehow given the amount of information that has been put out on the
disjointed involvement of the ISOC I would doubt very seriously that either
Vinton Cref or more especially Don Heath would be voted in.
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Frank Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The rea
On Fri, 21 May 1999 21:35:14 -0700, Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 11:34 PM 5/21/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>You've got to be kidding!
>
>
>Look who's talking.
>
>Actually, Jay, the question is why you are working so hard to rehash this
>very old and uninteresting topic now?
>
O
At 11:34 PM 5/21/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>You've got to be kidding!
Look who's talking.
Actually, Jay, the question is why you are working so hard to rehash this
very old and uninteresting topic now?
But that's ok. No need to answer.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
At 05:18 PM 5/21/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
>For the record, Joe was talking about two different things. But why does all
>this matter so much anyway? who phoned whom, etc. etc.
>
>The real question is:
>
>"Did whoever contacted you make you promise to do something in particular,
>vote for particu
Frank Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The real real question is:
> "Why can't we vote for our representatives? Why do you have the power to
> make decisions for the whole Internet?"
Just as an observation, if ISOC folks like Heath and Cerf ran for
ICANN board positions, or endorsed other can
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:03 AM 5/21/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:57:34PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
>>> After a summer of international meetings in 1998, people believed that the
>>> selection of the interim NewCo board would be made by a
At 2:18 PM -0700 5/21/99, Esther Dyson wrote:
>For the record, Joe was talking about two different things. But why does all
>this matter so much anyway? who phoned whom, etc. etc.
>
>The real question is:
>
>"Did whoever contacted you make you promise to do something in particular,
>vote for part
At 05:18 PM 5/21/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>For the record, Joe was talking about two different things. But why does all
>this matter so much anyway? who phoned whom, etc. etc.
>
>The real question is:
>
>"Did whoever contacted you make you promise to do something in particular,
>vote for pa
For the record, Joe was talking about two different things. But why does all
this matter so much anyway? who phoned whom, etc. etc.
The real question is:
"Did whoever contacted you make you promise to do something in particular,
vote for particular interests, or follow directions of any kind?"
> > After a summer of international meetings in 1998, people believed that the
> > selection of the interim NewCo board would be made by a PUBLIC process.
>
> Some truly naive people may have believed that. The political
> realities were that the people would have to be hand-selected, however.
At 02:03 AM 5/21/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:57:34PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
>> Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >- the selection process was a distributed search -- nobody involved
>> >knew all the players, or what everyone was doing
>>
>> I cut all the cc's. You can add 'e
Roberto Gaetano a écrit:
>
> Back to the serious side of your statement, if somebody among the many
> recipients of this thread is convinced that Joe Sims committed perjury,
> there's only one thing to do: take him to court.
That has been very seriously considered. I discussed it at length
with
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Eberhard,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > The way I read the notes Mr Simms said under oath (in front of a
> > Congressional Committee) he didn't do it, whereas he later said he
> > did it.
> >
> As I said before, the "it" in the first part of the sentence i
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:57:34PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >- the selection process was a distributed search -- nobody involved
> >knew all the players, or what everyone was doing
>
> I cut all the cc's. You can add 'em back if you want.
>
> After a summer of internatio
Eberhard,
You wrote:
> The way I read the notes Mr Simms said under oath (in front of a
> Congressional Committee) he didn't do it, whereas he later said he
> did it.
>
As I said before, the "it" in the first part of the sentence is a different
thing of the "it" in the second part. Joe did "one
Kent Crispin wrote:
>- the selection process was a distributed search -- nobody involved
>knew all the players, or what everyone was doing
I cut all the cc's. You can add 'em back if you want.
After a summer of international meetings in 1998, people believed that the
selection of the interim Ne
George,
In message <004001bea311$4ac5c880$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "George Conrades"
writes:
> Michael and Jay, You got to give Kent his point on how it happened
> with me.
To me personally it doesn't matter whether The K*nt gets a point or
not. He's quite silly anyway.
The way I read the notes Mr
Kent, I do agree with you that the actual methods was possibly
something that, if we knew what it was, we might agree was reasonable.
The trouble is, the method remains a mystery.
I personally find it hard to believe that there was no coherant
process by which a list was assembled, names ranked
26 matches
Mail list logo
