Dave,
> Only through considerable pressure have people like Rutkowski and
> Fenello finally acknowledged their affiliation to NSI -- while
> simultaneously ly claiming that taking money from NSI doesn't
> affect their opinion.
It's a bit like the question whether you've stopped beating your wife,
isnt it? It's easy to forget that a generation ago it was unthinkable
that money influenced ones judgement -- now its taken for granted,
but anyone asserting that they still hold to the old values of
independent judgement are damned if they assert that
'simultaneous claim,' and damned if they dont.
If one really wanted an independent domain-name-holders
association, the rule need only be that the applicant is not corrupt --
because that is what we're talking about, isnt it? If, then, some
member is shown to be corrupt, that some decision is *not hys,
but due to hyr corporate allegiance, then that member is expelled.
What could be simpler? - certainly not any kind of _a priori_
judgement, of the sort the Walshes of this world are determined to
apply to each and every issue that is raised.
Needless to say, I'm quite sure such a
NonCorruptDomainNameConstituency will never be recognized, but
the sooner the spade is identified as a spade, the more *profitable
any further discussion will be.
kerry
