On Mon, Apr 26, 1999 at 11:26:31AM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 02:30 AM 4/26/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
> >> While you are busy re-writing history,
> >> why don't you explain this interesting
> >> story from the Wall Street Journal.
> >>
> >> Were they "inaccurate" as well?
> >
> >Yep. Garbage reporting, according to Don.
>
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> Is this more dis-information from
> your role in black ops at Lawrence
> Livermore National Laboratory ;-)
You've been reading too many spy novels. I don't work in "black
ops", whatever that means. I'm a computer scientist. I work on
networks, in between meetings that any fan of "Dilbert" would
recognize.
> Anyway, here's what Don Heath
> *actually* had to say about it:
>
> At 01:58 PM 9/27/97 , Don Heath wrote:
> >>I think it is time to hear directly frm Don Heath.
> >
> >Old news; looks like someone wants to stir things up a bit
> >and I don't mean Dave Crocker.
That would be you, of course...
> > . . .
> >The reporter for the WSJ Europe, in my opinion, is very
> >competent. I had some problems with the plan, she knew it.
> >They have been, or are being, fixed.
Ie, Don supports the plan.
> >Don
1) You posted the original WSJ quote to the gtld-discuss list on Sept
26, 1997. (see the archives at www.gtld-mou.org). The thread
continued for several days after, and the accuracy of the reporting
was vigorously disputed. But according to the date you quote above
on the purported message from Don Heath, it was sent on Sept 27,
1997, one day after. No mention of this message appears in the
entire thread where this very issue was vigorously debated. The
thread went for several days. It is odd, to say the least, that you
didn't mention this message at that time.
On Dec 10, 1997 you did post a small fragment of a message
purporting to be from Don. No indication of where it came from or
how you got it, just like the above.
2) More important, however, is the fact that the quote, even if it
isn't a figment of your eager keyboard, or drastically quoted out of
context, does not contradict a statement that the story is poorly
reported. There is a vast difference between "I had some problems
with the plan that are being fixed" and "He flew back to the U.S.
vowing to get Washington to get off the sidelines and take a stance
on the issue".
3) And even more important is the fact that the WSJ quote and the
purported Don Heath quote are both utterly irrelevent, and not just
because that was a year and a half ago. At one time or another
*every single person* involved with the gTLD-MoU has had problems
with something or another. The IAHC process involved *many* changes,
and the result was a compromise that *no one* was totally happy with
-- just as ICANN represents many compromises that no one is totally
happy with. That is the inevitable nature of compromise.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
