[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The WWW boy (William Whalsh the Whiner) back to his old Games again to:Re: Credibility in the process and One Man ne Congress WAS: Re: [IFWP] gTLD constituency
- Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 00:22:21 GMT
- From: email@example.com (William X. Walsh)
- Subject: Re: The WWW boy (William Whalsh the Whiner) back to his old Games again to:Re: Credibility in the process and One Man ne Congress WAS: Re: [IFWP] gTLD constituency
Whoever you really are, please point out a SINGLE thing I said that
Nothing I said in my email was false in any way.
Prove it or shove it, you phoney liar (as you have been proven to be)
On Sun, 30 May 1999 17:22:03 +0100, Jeff Williams
> You are now seeing yet one more of many attempts and one of many reasons
>that it is so insane to have constituency model as part of the DNSO....
> Folks like William X. Walsh (AKA Willie the Whiner, the WWW boy) amongst
>a few others attempt to falsely accuse others and make inappropriate and
>inane comparisons that are neither valid or even approach reasonable.
>These comments by the WWW boy are a yet another example of such
>William X. Walsh wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 May 1999 19:05:38 -0400, Michael Sondow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >While I'm not altogether certain that the recently formed gTLD
>> >constituency is an appropriate place for prospective registries to
>> >find a voice in the DNSO, since their voice in it might easily be
>> >subsumed to that of NSI, I agree with IO Design's objection that no
>> >place has been made for it and like prospective regsitries in the SO
>> >structure of ICANN.
>> >New registries are sorely needed, not only by commercial interests
>> >for broadening their access to web-based e-commerce but for an
>> >expanded and conflict-free access to the Internet for individual and
>> >non-commercial independent users. The ICIIU therefore seconds the
>> >aspirations of IO Design and like new registries and endorses their
>> >efforts to gain a well-deserved voice in ICANN.
>> While I agree wholeheartedly with this comment, I note that Michael
>> again speaks unilaterally for the ICIIU.....
>> One person making a decision of what to support on behalf of a
>> This reminds me of when Michael and others (including myself)
>> challenged ISOC support of certain proposals simply because Don Heath
>> said so, with no voting or consensus amongst those who make up the
>> I recently began work with 3 others to form a sort of trade
>> association (which I will not comment on further here), but even
>> though I am the "founder" of this group, I would not presume to speak
>> on behalf of the group without their prior consent and support of what
>> I am going to say.
>> It is for this reason (amongst others) that Mr Sondow will not be
>> taken seriously by many who will have a role in any NCDNHC that is
>> Mr Sondow has made some valid comments recently, and has only
>> trivialized them by use of the ICIIU name.
>> I propose the formation of a new "organization" to try and bring
>> together the various interests and get this entire NCDNHC out from
>> under the umbrella of both the Sondow/ICIIU and the ISOC.
>> At least then it might have some credibility.
>> William X. Walsh email@example.com
>> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>> Fax:(209) 671-7934
William X. Walsh firstname.lastname@example.org
General Manager, DSo Internet Services