I know that there has been plenty of postings on this subject later in
the day but I really could n let this one go by.
Are you saying that people can't change or people cannot/should not
change their opinions of people over time?
That's a scary thought.
Rather I thing we should be applauding Milton Mueller and Michael
Sondow for their ability to find compromise and work together towards
a common goal. The ability to compromise is something that has been
sorely missing from this process.
And I leave you all with a final thought: If you believe everything
Marty says, think of what would be required for Milton to go to such
lengths. The alternative must b truly horrendous.
G'night all. I've had a long day.
"Martin B. Schwimmer" wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> 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."
>
> So we see the depth and sincerity of Cook's and Mueller's alliance with
> Sondow.
>
> 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.
>
> Mr. Sondow, for inexplicable reasons, perhaps suffering
> fatigue or mental breakdown, suddenly became distraught
> and began to make threatening telephone calls to the staff
> at Cooper Union, including the President and Vice President,
> asserting that he (Mr. Sondow) would physically disrupt the
> event should it proceed as planned, as well as flood the
> internet with discrediting messages about Cooper Union,
> the DNS.Forum event, and persons connected to the event,
> including myself.
>
> Given the lack of clear credibility of Mr. Sondow, and his
> apparent "one-man organization", so-called "ICIIU", it is
> no great loss that Mr. Sondow has disassociated himself from
> the event. Apparently, he was upset that the credit was
> being shared by all the contributing organizations involved
> in the event, and threw a tantrum at the last minute and
> decided to unilaterally cancel the event on what appeared
> to be a self-indulgent, capricious whim."
>
> Frankly, it is evidence of the absurdity of this process that Sondow's
> status as a representative of anyone other than himself is seriously
> debated for more than a millisecond.
>
> 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. I did
> pay my $35 to join the Internet Society but I only did so to meet women
> (film fans will appreciate that reference to Zero Mostel's line in "The
> Front" when explaining why he attended communist meetings in the '30's -
> the McCarthyism reference seems appropriate here).
>
> Professor Froomkin used the term "purloined letter" when referring to the
> WIPO report.
>
> The "purloined letter" technique may be better applied to those who
> selected the Interim Board.
>
> Attention paid to Sondow is attention diverted from a more important issue:
> why is there a process which allows this farce where we spend so much time
> paying attention to Sondow?
>
> Who benefits?
>
> p.s. I stopped writing to Sondow because in response to my question "how
> could you possibly know what I am thinking?" he wrote back to say that he
> could read my mind. While I believe that he meant that metaphorically and
> not schizophrenically, that type of remark illustrates why he is utterly
> inappropriate for any consensus-oriented entity, and why if someone wanted
> to perpetuate the status quo and exert power behind the scene, yet retain
> the illusion of democracy, they would "delegate" authority to a "consensus
> manager."
>
> At 06:28 PM 6/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Martin B. Schwimmer a �crit:
> >
> >> In a series of posts on September 27, 1998, Gordon Cook posted publicly the
> >> following remarks directed at Sondow:
> >>
> >> "you are hardly the most welcome person on this list. I advise you to take
> >> your personal attacks to private mail."
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> "gee just when sondow had shown some signs of maturity, he throws another
> >> lovely tantrum......."
> >
> >Ah, Mr. Schwimmer, you have been lying in wait all this time to get
> >even with me for besting you in the debates subsequent to the
> >Monterrey DNSO.org conference.
> >
> >It's true, when I first began posting on these lists I was subject
> >to flaming and, having a passionate nature, responded in kind,
> >which, from a newbie, was not taken well. But I have since paid my
> >dues, as they say, and have found common ground with those, like
> >Gordon Cook, who are fighting for justice and freedom on the
> >Internet. I only wish that you were one of them.
> >
> >
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
