[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [discuss] FW: Re: S. 705

Kent Crispin wrote:

> In fact, Joop's attack on Dave and I was a pure matter of his
> personal dislike,

This is not correct. The issue, as I recall, was whether your participation would be
predicated on support for the idea of an individual constituency. Nothing personal about
that. You may also recall that I and others spoke up against excluding you from the
list. And correct me if I am wrong, but the end result was that you have not, in fact,
been excluded from the list.

> buttressed by truly offensive posts from Roeland
> Meyer,  constant antagonism from William Walsh,

This is true. Their participation was at a very low level and consisted of personal
attacks. But Joop and the IDNO members are not responsible for that.

> My general position is still that I am not sure that an IDNO needs to
> exist.  However, I am now convinced that the IDNO that Joop is trying
> to organize is not legitimate

I would think that the people who *are* sure that an IDNO constituency needs to exist
should be the ones to judge the legitimacy of an organization applying to ICANN for
recognition as such.