[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[discuss] RE: [council] Re: [IFWP] regular exprssion of the general assembly of the dnso
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.
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.
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@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 1999 3:30 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: [council] Re: [IFWP] regular exprssion of
>the general assembly of the dnso
> I have received this message from firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Please remove my e-mail from the ifwp list immediatly. I
> 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@example.com 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.