Re: [ALSC-Forum] RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
- To: William X Walsh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
- From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:20:31 -0800
- CC: Joanna Lane <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>, Roberto Gaetano <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <DPEOJECBMOLLLJOFDNDPEECCCDAA.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
William X Walsh wrote:
> Tuesday, Tuesday, March 19, 2002, 8:25:41 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > From: William X Walsh
> > Joanna won't deny what I said either, as I know she stands by her
> > views and doesn't deny them later when it may not suit her. She made
> > it clear that the she felt that those who participate in other aspects
> > of ICANN should not be joining the At Large. The message was clear,
> > and plainly spelled it out.
> > ________________________________________
> > Dear William,
> > Obviously not. Please refer to
> > http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27.
> > Since this was posted on March 2nd, before Accra, it refers to Lynn's
> > proposal in different terms than I would do now.
> Here is exactly what you said:
> Message header:
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:23:35 -0500
> From: Joanna Lane <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
> To: Ken Stubbs <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: email@example.com, Joop Teernstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Message-id: <DPEOJECBMOLLLJOFDNDPIEKECBAA.email@example.com>
> > A person who is a paid advocate for a special interest group cannot work
> > both sides of the fence in my personal opinion, whether or not they are a
> > domain name registrant or not. While the support is certainly welcome, isn't
> > it better for them to participate in the At Large debate as an advocate of
> > their special interest group, transparently, perhaps even joining a
> > "provider" class of membership that would have special value to the
> > organization. In this way, we would have no diffulty evaluating the weight
> > of contributions and give them the merit they deserve, as opposed to giving
> > ammunition to those who would say Marilyn was lobbying for AT & T in a
> > subversive fashion, and confusing those who are not familiar with her
> > position. It seems to me this would be a workeable relationship to engender
> > the trust we so badly need if all are amenable.
> You opppose Marilyn, and by correlation any others who may be
> represented by an existing class in the ICANN process, from being a
> part of the At Large except in some lower class "support" or
> "advocate" role.
Now you're really reaching. I don't think anybody's
fooled by your excerpting tactic, so don't flatter
yourself into believing you're even halfway convincing. I
think Don Brown's reading of the thread jives with my own
and that of those others who may have looked at it.
Give it up. You are among the least credible persons on
any of these discussion lists. How's thepollingbooth.org
coming along? What about your other project
cyberspaceassociation.org? Got any more domains you wish
to give up..?
Hermes Network Inc.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html