On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, at 15:56 [=GMT-0800], Robert L Mathews wrote: > At 2/1/03 1:54 PM, Patrick wrote: > > >Throughout all of this participation, I watched a small group of insular, > >manipulative, back-room players succeed in gaining and solidfying control > >of what is arguably one of the most important resources on the Internet > > That is *REALLY* rich coming from someone who used to work for New.net, a > private company that has attempted to steal (yes, that's the correct > word) exclusive control of numerous TLDs without even a pretense of > community consensus. It makes your argument seem disingenuous at best.
I think he is talking about the period long before he worked for new.net. > As to your larger point: the fact that not everyone who participates in > the process gets his way doesn't necessarily mean the process is rigged. > Another possibility is that his opinion is in the minority. The point is that Eliot Noss using the invalid reverse reasoning: They didn't get it their way and now they cry about that. That is not the point, the point is, that it is not an open process. This has been studied and documented by US professors of politics and law. So?
