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

RE: [discuss] RE: [council] Re: [IFWP] regular exprssion of the general assembly of the dnso

> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Javier SOLA
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 7:49 AM
> To: discuss@dnso.org; council@dnso.org
> Don,
> 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.

For a commercial, for-profit, publicly held corporation to meet to your
demands, for openness, would probably be a violation of US law on their
part, on some level or multiple levels. I believe that you know this and
are simply grand-standing.

>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
> There will be no accuracy problems after that.

As Karl A stated in the NC meeting, lest someone accuse me of being an
NSI shill, my cash-flow to that organization has been in the wrong
direction. I'm not even an investor/shareholder, they are an expense,
for MHSC.

> 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.

I find it preposterous that you would demand that someone violate their
personal honesty and integrity by violating the trust of their employer.
Don is being as objective as he can afford to be. Remember that he is an
officer of NSI. As such, he is under certain obligations. In his seat,
would you answer these demands? I think not.

> 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
> it the same way.

I vehemently disagree.

> Javier
> 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:javier@aui.es]
> >		Sent:	Saturday, June 26, 1999 3:30 PM
> >		To:	discuss@dnso.org
> >		Cc:	council@dnso.org
> >		Subject:	[council] Re: [IFWP] regular
> exprssion of
> >the general assembly of the dnso
> >
> >		Richard,
> >
> >		I have received this message from owner-list@ifwp.org.
> >
> >		Please remove my e-mail from the ifwp list immediatly. I
> >have not
> >		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 discuss@dnso.org 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.
> >
> >		Javier
> >
> >