On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:02:59PM -0500, Jay "Big Lie" Fenello wrote:
> At 11:10 AM 3/29/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Bill, you should know by now that Jay continuously and knowingly
> >spreads disinformation about the MoU and about ICANN.
> >
> >For example, in his message "Power Politics and the New
> >Internet Order" he wrote about the MoU as follows: "It would have
> >established an authority control model of governance, and it claimed
> >ownership over the entire name space."
> >
> >This is complete hogwash.
> >
> >David Maher, chair of the POC, wrote to Jay as follows:
>
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> Nice to see you up to your old tricks
> again. Did David send you my email,
> or did you get it through your "black"
> contacts at Lawrence Livermore ;-)
It surely is a pity that you don't bother to read the things you
criticize. I said, in that message:
"(David sent this exchange to the POC list)."
> Anyway, David had questioned the last
> line in the following paragraph:
>
> "The gTLD-MoU was controversial because it would have
> confiscated all generic Top Level Domains, not only from
> startups like IO Design (who had been running the .web
> registry for approximately one year), but also from Network
> Solutions. It would have established an authority control
> model of governance, and it claimed ownership over the
> entire name space."
>
> The correction that I agreed with was
> that the IAHC did not "claim" ownership
> over the entire name space. On the other
> hand, I do believe that it *would* have
> been a consequence of that failed and
> faulty plan.
>
> IMHO, that was a minor point, one that *I*
> did not need to make
To translate: "Yes, I agree that I lied to make a point, but the lie
was a small part of my argument, so it doesn't matter. It certainly isn't
something *I* need to correct."
> (especially when you
> consider that neither of you disputed the
> first half of that paragraph).
Another dishonest propaganda ploy on your part: "You didn't disagree,
so it must be true."
Just for the record, the entire paragraph is a deliberate mistruth on
your part. The MoU didn't "confiscate" anything, not from you or
Ambler or NSI; it didn't establish an "authority control model of
governance" (whatever that is); and it didn't claim to own the name
space. In fact, it explicitly stated that the name space was a
public trust.
> As everyone
> can see below, I encouraged David to make
> it himself.
An empty offer, Jay -- How could David know all those you sent it to?
> I guess he decided to throw
> it to his hatchet man instead ;-)
No -- it's just that David is a much more restrained person than I.
I try to avoid dealing with your happy smears and smiling "Big Lie"
propaganda, but sometimes I just can't stand it anymore.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
