There was nothing under the table. There was nothing
unethical. They were contributors to the process who did
not have funding. The fact that they were not quite so one
sided in their views as you is another issue.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 2:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:14:40PM -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kent,
>
> Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not
support ICANN?
The precise definition of "antagonist" is completely
unimportant.
The real issue is that NSI, a government contractor, has
funded
participation of other parties who support a key NSI
position
(private control of TLDs).
Given that the activity under discussion has direct
relevance to DOC
oversight of NSI, and that NSI is a government contractor, I
think
these under the table payments by NSI are quite significant.
And
they certainly give an insight into the ethics of the NSI
management.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
