On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 09:02:38AM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Kent Crispin a �crit:
>
> What I stated in my post is precisely what occurred in Berlin. You
> were not there.
I stayed up all night two nights watching it over the web; I watched
the entire DNSO general assembly meeting, and the entire ICANN
meeting.
> You were not present at any of the discussions. You
> know absolutely nothing of what went on. How you, who were not
> involved in any way, dare come out now on this list to tell people
> what happened is beyond all understanding.
I was watching you, Michael. It is so entertaining to see you use
the "royal we" when speaking of the ICIIU...
> I suppose it is simply
> more of the same thing that we must expect from you and the other
> CORE people, that is, your continual tactic of telling lies, the
> bigger the better, in the hope that it will leave people speechless.
> You aren't intelligent enough to invent subtle tactics for
> perpetrating your maneuvers and manipulations,
No -- I would never think of creating a fake organization, and then
using it as a platform to build a fake constituency proposal -- I
have to leave it to you and Jay and others to come up with those
brilliant, subtle tactics.
> so you just lie, and
> you have discovered by experience, as even brutes will eventually,
> that the bigger the lie the more astonished people are and the
> harder it is for them to reply to it.
I have learned that from watching you, and several others.
[...]
> > Here is the actual
> > ISOC/POC supported version of the disputed section:
> >
> > Until August 31, the NCDNHC shall be governed by an interim
> > committee of five officers to be selected by nominations, to be
> > made on or before June 21, and an election to be conducted on June
> > 25 by email ballots of the Founding Members.
>
> <snip>
>
> This is not the proposal put forth by David Maher and Don Heath in
> Berlin.
Yes, it is. It is the one reported to the ICANN board meeting, and it
is the one that David Maher sent around to the NCDNHC list.
[...]
> > So, Mr Sondow, you claim you worked with those people who signed up
> > with you. Do you have an archive of the mailing list where you
> > discussed this stuff, so we can all examine your open and transparent
> > processes?
>
> I do have an archive of most of the correspondence between the ICIIU
> and its supporting organizations, but I am under no obligation to
> reveal it to you.
Of course not -- open and transparent processes are for others, not
His Royal Highness Michael Sondow.
> The ICIIU presented its guidelines proposal to each and every one of
> its supporters before posting it and sending it to ICANN, something
> I doubt very much that ISOC did. But I don't intend to prove it to
> you,
Somehow, I could have guessed that.
> > Could you point us to the web pages of REDI? A cyberlaw
> > association must surely have a web page, but I have searched
> > altavista, and don't find anything.
>
> You can't find REDI's webpages? You are an incompetent fool, aren't
> you?
No, I couldn't find them.
[...]
> The bottom line on this nonsense of yours is that you have no
> credibility to interrogate anyone, after what you did to the people
> who went to Monterrey to try and form the DNSO. I'm talking about
> your dirty, lying trick to re-write the Monterrey DNSO consensus
> draft behind their backs. You betrayed everyone who went to
> Monterrey, and are single-handedly responsible for the division of
> the incipient DNSO and all the subsequent rivalry and waste of time
> and energy to patch it back up.
Wow. Single-handedly? I must be remarkably competent, then, wouldn't
you say?
> Of all the dishonest criminals who have disrupted the White Paper
> process, you are probably the worst. So shameful are the things you
> have done, you don't dare show your face at the ICANN meetings.
Actually, I couldn't afford to go. NSI didn't pay my way like they
promised. But one can't help but wonder who pays for you.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
