Kent,
Being harshly critical of bad ideas is a good thing not a
bad thing, especially if better alternatives are proposed
and a basis for that criticism is provided. The idea is to
get to a better solution.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 5:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST
Solicitation
No. 52SBNT9C1020
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 10:41:35AM -0800, Einar Stefferud
wrote:
> Hello Chuck and all --
>
> I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and
operations
> than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE
policies and
> operations.
That's very creative. Stef. Perhaps you could point me to
the
hundreds of mail messages from you that are "harshly
critical" of NSI?
In all honesty, I don't remember a *single* one.
However, I could easily go through my archives and pull down
a random
sample of 50 or so messages from you that are indeed harshly
critical of IAHC/CORE/ICANN/IANA etc. I think, in fact,
that the
objective external observer would say that NSI and ORSC have
been in
bed for some time now.
Of course, everyone will make their own judgement as to
whether you
have been more critical of NSI or IAHC/CORE. But it seems
absolutely
crystal clear to me.
Another point I find quite interesting: I think this example
points
out the clear difference in ethical stance between CORE and
NSI --
Someone in CORE spent good money to be sure that a critic
was
represented; NSI spent good money to stack things in their
favor.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
