Mikki, Antony and all, Yes and you did not include andy of the postings of substance in you summary that We (INEGroup) made either including our proposed draft ideas either Antony. You also specifically made a comment regarding ME in specific as to NOT including any of our suggestions. Now this is certainly NOT OPENNESS or TRANSPARENCY and is a form of CENSORSHIP. with respect ot you ZERO SUM game fraudulent report from your own words. CENSORSHIP IN ANY OF ITS FORMS IS WRONG! Mike Barry wrote: > >The summary was from the [EMAIL PROTECTED] While attempting to be fair, the > >work is nonetheless personal, and I almost certainly made mistakes. I don't > >know what you mean by "submitted by open process", did this get sent to > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]? If you're talking about the message where you compare > >INTA to plantation owners and domain holders to slaves, I didn't include > >that because there wasn't anything in it about the draft application per se. > > Yes, it was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as well as to other dnso lists, the > ifwp list, the domain-policy list, etc. By open process meant that it was > formulated openly on mailing lists and by use of comments solicited from as > many people as could be reached given the short deadline. > > It was quite extensive. Do you need another copy? Regards, -- Jeffrey A. William's CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INNER. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Quirked Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
