William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> You crossed the line here.
>
> Dr Lisse is one of the loudest and most vocal proponents for open and
> accountable systems, and he is quite strong in his dedication to these
> principles.
If so than he should not advocate the opposite which I was replying to
and YOU seem to have edited out conveniently WIlliam. SO I would say that
in this particular case YOU have stepped over the line, if there is such a
thing in these discussions and debates of late. In addition Dr Lisse
levied a PERSONAL attack at me in private on a QUESTION I ask
in PUBLIC. I find that back to the days of the IAHC/gTLD-MoU tactics
that is not only unnecessary, but unwarranted. So, I pointed that out
PUBLICALY. Got a problem with that William? If so, I will repeat
one of your responses, TUFF!!!
>
>
> Your obvious ignorance about exactly who you are commenting about just goes to
> show that you have no real clue about what is going on.
I don't care if he is Jesus Christ on the cross. If he makes the kind
of remark in private in response to a QUESTION I ask in PUBLIC
than he should be exposed for the REAL attitude he, Dr Lisse, is
displaying.
>
>
> I may question the motives and integrity of the PAB/CORE members who are
> spearheading this DNSO.org, but the integrity of Dr Lisse is a different
> matter. Dr Lisse is working in good faith to try and have an affect on what
> has been a very closed and non-open process, and I say more power to him.
His own words that I replied to betray that thought William. Sorry I
cannot agree with this assessment in this instance.
>
>
> He made a very on topic comment in relation to this upcoming meeting. By even
> attending this meeting, we may be granting a sanction to the trademark groups
> that they have interests which supercede the interests of the truly vast
> majority of domain name holders, and that there interests deserve more merit
> than those of the less influential domain name holders.
It should not matter one bit what the Trademark interest are with relation
to any OPEN meeting. Dr Lisse, seems to view that differently. FIne.
But than he cannot at the same time claim a belief in openness if he
does so. Period. Full stop.
>
>
> I must agree that a carefull examination of the intent of such a meeting is
> called for and necessary.
Agreed. But it is unlikely that such an accurate determination can be
made with respect to INTENT in this instance. And this is just VERY
basic common sense.
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 08-Jan-99
> Time: 14:42:54
> ----------------------------------
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood 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____________________________________________
