Re: [IFWP] NSI payments Adam Todd and Richard Sexton

[Einar Stefferud]

Hello Kent -- If the words you are using (yours, not ours) are
"completely unimportant" (your words, not ours), then why do you
publish them in the first place.

Shall we also assume that your use of the words "private control of
TLDs" is also completely unimportant?

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:28:26 -0800:
}
}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