Martin B. Schwimmer a �crit:
>
> And when Cooper Union canceled its DNS conference in September of last
> year, was that because Sondow was a newbie, or were they afraid he was > a
>potentially violent nutjob?
Cooper Union cancelled the conference, which I had organized almost
single-handedly (you only have to ask the people in the CU Public
Relations Office to get corroboration of this), because it was being
taken over at the last minute, with the nod from Paul Garrin, by
people who were not, in my opinion, in agreement with the reasons
why it had been organized. Since I had done the greater part of the
work to organize it, I felt it was my right to cancel it if it had
been turned away from its original purposes.
> This is what his ally of the moment, Milton Mueller, wrote to this list on
> Sept 22, after Sondow unilaterally cancelled the event:
>
> "For reasons that I am not privy to, Mr. Sondow has chosen to
> disassociate himself from the event. That he is now claiming that
> the event is cancelled gives you some idea of his tactics."
Well, evidently, I wasn't about to let others, who intended to use
the conference for reasons contrary to mine, to exploit my work for
themselves.
> So we see the depth and sincerity of Cook's and Mueller's alliance with
> Sondow.
It's also possible, don't you agree, that Gordon Cook and Milton
Mueller (no need to insult them by using only their surnames, is
there, Mr. Schwimmer?) realized that their first judgements had been
mistaken?
> Paul Garrin wrote that day:
>
> "It seems that Mr. Sondow has taken it upon himself to sabotage
> and then cancel the event at Cooper Union. Everything was
> arranged and all parties, to my knowledge were prepared to
> fulfill their contributions to the event.
You won't get very far using Paul Garrin as a witness. Mr. Garrin is
an opportunist who was intending to use the conference for his own
commercial purposes, which is one of the resaons that, when I
realized the truth, I did my best to stop it.
> Now before there is an attempt to distract the list's attention with
> unfounded accusations about my affiliations, I note that I am not employed
> by or paid by or represent anyone jockeying for position for control of the
> non-commercial constituency, and I don't really care who wins out.
Nothing could be further from the truth than this totally
disingenuous claim. You are obviously a partisan of Mr. Maher, a
trademark attorney like yourself and representing the same or
similar interests, and with whose now-defunct POC your organization
the INTA has had an agreement to collaborate since the days of the
IAHC. The same is true of the relationship between the INTA and
ISOC. Your INTA forms one leg of the ISOC/CORE/INTA conspiracy that
almost got control of the DNS in 1997, and which is behind the
reactionary coup d'etat that has been perpetrated on the White Paper
process and the Internet community now. You are, in short, a liar.
