On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 11:16:25 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>William and all,
>
> I certainly don't see your take on Michaels post at all. It appears
>readily apparent in Michael's post that he was using himself as
>an EXAMPLE, not for personal gain or recognition of any kind.
>
> But as we have all learned that YOU William, have a personal
>problem with Michael and others, which this post reply to Michael
>on the list seems to strongly indicate yet again. This of course
>comes as no surprise, as it seems to be your habit.
I have no personal problem with Michael whatsoever.
Whatever would make you think that?
I merely point out observations, which have already proven to be borne
out by the facts.
Pesky things those facts, aren't they Jeffey? I have some more facts
that came into my hands today that you may find interesting, once I
verify them.
>William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> If there was any doubt about Michael caring more about personal
>> recognition than about the goals he purports to support, let this
>> message below put them to rest.
>>
>> Michael, Patrick said no such thing, and nor is he guilty of any of
>> the charges you hastily posted below.
>>
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 13:50:53 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Patrick Greenwell a �crit:
>> >>
>> >> Doubtlessly you'll scream at me for not agreeing with your assesment.
>> >
>> >I sceram at no one. But are you content, then, that the NC is in the
>> >hands of CORE (and ISOC)? Is this, according to you, the fulfillment
>> >of the White Paper's call for self-organization by all stakeholders?
>> >
>> >Are you helping here to justify CORE and ISOC's takeover of the DNSO
>> >because it keeps users like me out, which you seem to be in
>> >agreement with, since you have insulted and rejected and aggressed
>> >against us ever since we dared to intervene on these lists and in
>> >the NewCo, despite the fact that the White Paper and the DOC have
>> >stated that the DNSO should be divided equally between users and
>> >operators? I guess that, for you, capture of ICANN by CORE and ISOC,
>> >so long as it excludes the users, is the lesser of two evils. At
>> >least, that's what you seem to be saying.
>>
>> --
>> William X. Walsh
>> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>>
>> "The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
>> characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
>> --Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
>
>Regards,
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
