Anupam Chander writes:
First, Mr.
Sondow's uneducated claim that I have "only recently become aware of ICANN's
activities" is utterly false.
I used the word "uneducated" in reference to the ICANN Board, not
Mr. Chander. As to Mr. Chander being only recently involved in this
affair, I don't
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:13:25AM -0700, Anupam Chander wrote:
[...]
Mr. Sondow's future postings will go unanswered by me.
That is because he has no answer to them.
Generally, that is the best policy.
Same for Crispin, whose credibility (never very great, since he
Anupam Chander writes:
While I appreciate Mr. Sondow's concern, this seems to me a premature
assessment.
It seems to premature to Mr. Chander because you he has only
recently become aware of ICANN's activities. If he had been
following its development for the past two years, as I have, he
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:13:25AM -0700, Anupam Chander wrote:
[...]
Mr. Sondow's future postings will go unanswered by me.
Generally, that is the best policy.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark
Anupam Chander wrote:
ICANN can still serve the interests of humankind by not privileging the
entities that proposed the TLDs when it decides who will administer the TLDs
it awards.
If this is a joke, it isn't very funny. ICANN is selling TLDs. The
$50K application fee makes that crystal
