This is getting ridiculous.
At the end of the process of privatization of the DNS, how could you *not*
end up with private control of TLDs? (gTLDs, anyway)
Maybe someday someone will explain what the hell this is really about
instead of hiding behind factional code words.
David Schutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 1:28 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
