[ga-abuse] Re[2]: [ga] Re: NCDNHC supported an individual domain name holders constituency in principle

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Will I have to tolerate this, or will you enforce your rules?

If you don't enforce them swiftly, I will defend myself against
allegations like this, vociferously.


Saturday, December 16, 2000, 9:00:18 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 12:09 16/12/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>>Nobody is lying, nobody has been called a liar, and there are no actual
>>facts that are in dispute.  The issue is the SIGNIFICANCE of the 
>>non-disputed facts.
>>

> I recall that Mr Walsh took the opportunity to take an offensive swipe at
> the veracity of the quoted tresolution. 
> Now Vany has spoken out, an apology would be part of normal civil discourse.

> Otherwise I can accept that the issue is in the significance. 
> I may presume that all NCDNHC members who agreed on that resolution in
> Santiago would find it pretty significant.
> You, of course, do not.

> I hear things are not well in the NCDNHC constituency.

> Did you and Mr Crocker manage to prevent that there was a constituency
> -wide vote on the issue?
> If so, is the more important issue not what registry/registrar advocates
> are doing in a Domain Name Holder constituency?


> --Joop--
> www.idno.org
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com