[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] General Comments on the agenda
Victoria, Jon and all,
Dr. Victoria Carrington wrote:
> Michael, Gordon:
> Do you really think your messages are adding anything to the GA dialog?
I see by your question that you don't believe that Michaels or Gordons
comments/statements are in any way useful to these discussions.
Respectfully I disagree strongly, and find this question, as leading,
and frankly, immaterial. As lawyers, Victoria, you and Jon are well
aware of that meaning.
> I think not. What they are doing however, is cluttering up an awful lot
> of Inboxes around the world, and for no discernable reason other than to
> personally insult people. I am particularly annoyed that you are
> forcing me to respond and thus add to the growing pile of useless
> messages of this sort. This is the first and last time I will dignify
> such messages with any reply. Surely the rest of the GA is populated by
> individuals who will draw their own negative conclusions about future
> similar postings from you.
Respectfully I would say that you characterization here in your last
sentence is likely incorrect and insulting in and of itself.
> While there is no offence where none is
> taken, it seems somewhat infantile to resort to such tactics. I
> reiterate that the process is not furthered in any way by doing so.
Again I would tend to disagree on several grounds. First, Gordon and
Michaels comments are a strong expression of what their observations,
as with many others, have been, second, such expression is germane
to the subject(s) at hand, third, their comments/statements are broadly
shared by a wide range of stakeholders, forth are seemingly accurate
in their reflection of a skewed process that the DNSO has been, and
most especially of the pNC/NC (Legitimate?) sense the Berlin meeting...
> I'll leave it to Jonathan to reply to what I am generously
> characterizing as the "substantive" portions of your respective
> messages, but what I will respond to is your criticism of our choice of
> e-mail accounts to use, irrelevant as it may be to the business of the
Their comments regarding the use of E-Mail ID's is NOT irrelevant
on any mailing list of this nature as it is an indication of Identity as has
been discussed and expressed significantly by the ICANN Board
itself with respect to a means of identification for ICANN membership.
> In fairness, since we don't know eachother, (and perhaps you should have
> asked before criticizing) you may not know that Jonathan is the senior
> managing partner of our law firm, I am his junior associate.
Than Jon should have known to use his OWN E-Mail address when
posting HIS comments to this list. If not than much on the negative
side can be determined from his not doing so.
> therefore work with him on his files. Since an increasing part of his
> job involves the DNSO, NC, etc., I work with him on this also, as I have
> been doing for the past couple of years. This is standard law firm
Than I would submit that your law firm procedure is in error and
> Our full-time practices require just as much time and
> dedication as your jobs do. Working on Internet matters, attending the
> meetings, following the process and keeping up with a tremendous amount
> of e-mail takes us just as much time as it takes you. Hence, part of my
> job is assisting Jonathan with this and it is purely for the sake of our
> own convenience, that drafts of any correspondence, reports etc, are
> sent from this particular account. When something is sent to, or
> received from this account, it's from Jonathan, unless explicitly stated
> otherwise. Now is that so very bad?
Yes this is a VERY bad practice, as has already been pointed out
on more than one occasion on other related lists, such as the MAC list,
(See archives for more details). And for a creditable law firm to use
this bad practice speaks volumes as to its creditability on internet matters
and its base of knowledge regarding internet matters as well...
> Since you sent your respective messages, Prof. Froomkin has posted a
> fairly detailed analysis of the issues with which he is concerned, and I
> see that neither of you has had an opportunity to reply to him, as
> yet. I sincerely hope that you consider his views important enough
> that the next messages you post here will include some constructive
> comments about them, rather than observations about my e-mail account.
I believe on more than one occasion both Michael and Gordon have
posted several detailed remarks to Prof. Froomkin's views and
other comments, as have many of us.
In the future, be a bit more polite and each of you (Jonathan and
yourself) use your own E-Mail addresses when making respective posts
to this or any other mailing list...
> Best regards,
> Dr. Victoria Carrington
> Michael Sondow wrote:
> > Gordon Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Jesus! What a boatload of condescending crap!
> > You took the words right out of my mouth. It's astonishing. Jonathan
> > Cohen talking down to Michael froomkin! Incredible. But Dr.
> > Froomkin's been asking for it, playing these people's game.
> > > from mr cohen who
> > > really ought to be writing under his own account.
> > Is "Victoria Carrington" an alias for Jonathan Cohen? How sweet!
> Shapiro Cohen
> Group of Intellectual Property Practices
> Ottawa, Canada
> Telephone: (613)232-5300
> Facsimile: (613) 563-9231
> This correspondence is intended for the person to whom it is addressed
> and contains information that is confidential, and/or privileged to the
> named recipient, and may be proprietary in nature. It is not to be used
> by any other person and/or organization. If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect)
> and/or return e-mail.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208