At 01:28 AM 3/11/99 -0500, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
That said, I very much supported cutting you off at the microphone after
you'd (to be sure, just in my and some others' view, clearly not yours!)
abused the privilege to speak at it. I'd like to explain why. The
archives are all online at
Jonathan Zittrain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ronda
I credit the earnestness of your position, and I certainly don't view your
position--as I roughly understand it, that the U.S. government nurtured the
Net, and that the White Paper's framework of turning certain key technical
functions from the
It's important to put a good word in for Jonathan Zittrain.
Regardless of my own desire for more openness in ICANN's processes, I
think he and others at the Berkman Center have behaved in an honest and
forthright manner, trying to include as many people in the discussions
as possible. I've
Craig and all,
It is well established and well documented now that the dictatorial
actions an style of the ICANN. Hitler-like would be carrying it
a bit to far. Stalin like would be more appropriate possibly. It is
none the less as FACT that the ICANN is acting unilaterally and is
on the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "William X. Walsh" writes:
On 12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Johnathan, Ronda,
That said, I very much supported cutting you off at the microphone after
you'd (to be sure, just in my and some others' view, clearly not yours!)
abused the
On 12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "William X. Walsh" writes:
On 12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Johnathan, Ronda,
That said, I very much supported cutting you off at the microphone
after
you'd (to be sure, just in my and some
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "William X. Walsh" writes:
You feel quite comfortable with what you are saying?
From reading Ronda's comments yes I do.
I don't see her comments as being on topic at all, and I think that in this
situation they were more than generous in the leeway
William
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "William X. Walsh" writes:
I don't agree that her points are that important, but nonetheless, lets assume
they are for this purpose.
You are entitled to your opinion. As is anybody else.
If we are having a meeting to decide if our company should open
On 12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
William
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "William X. Walsh" writes:
I don't agree that her points are that important, but nonetheless, lets
assume
they are for this purpose.
You are entitled to your opinion. As is anybody else.
If
William,
it doesn't matter whether you or I think she was germain or not.
In order to conduct deliberations in large groups of people one uses
rules of order, in the US most commonly the RRoO.
One does not cut off microphones if one doesn't like the points being
made. Can't you see that?
el
Eberhard and all,
Well said, well said! SOme folks would rather attack the individual
rather than the content of their remarks/comments. Many do not even
wish to hear alternative or differing views. When the do or are
forced to do so, they become extremely uncomfortable. Cutting
Ronda off
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "William X. Walsh" writes:
You feel quite comfortable with what you are saying?
From reading Ronda's comments yes I do.
I don't see her comments as being on
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], jeff Williams writes:
Eberhard and all,
Well said, well said!
So I DO exist?
el
On 12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
William,
it doesn't matter whether you or I think she was germain or not.
In order to conduct deliberations in large groups of people one uses
rules of order, in the US most commonly the RRoO.
And those rules of order call for the chair to
"William X. Walsh" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writing:
12-Mar-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "William X. Walsh" writes:
She exists. And she makes some very important points.
I don't agree that her points are that important, but nonetheless, lets assume
they are for
Ronda,
I credit the earnestness of your position, and I certainly don't view your
position--as I roughly understand it, that the U.S. government nurtured the
Net, and that the White Paper's framework of turning certain key technical
functions from the USG over to a private, public trust entity
16 matches
Mail list logo
