William,
The problem is that the information on domain name holders is not
authoritative.
If I were the salesmen in the ICANN HQ intent on bringing home an order,
I could not ignore Kents critisism. On the political stage he, should be
ignored, however.
Did I not once many months ago, following JW's cute little Verisign
demonstration, ask you how much a real certificate of authority would
cost?
I believe you said $3,500 per individual, or something like that.
Arnold Gehring
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, July 17, 1999 9:54 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
>Saturday, July 17, 1999, 2:39:56 PM, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>> Joop's statement about passwords was naive, because a fraudulent
>> voter *with* a password is no better than a fraudulent voter
>> *without* a password. The primary problem remains, as Diane pointed
>> out, authenticating the voters in the first place.
>
>Every member has been verified as a domain name holder by the
>membership committee. EVERY single one. Perhaps Kent can stop
>spreading misinformation and FUD now, and can instead educated himself
>on how this really works before he jumps to false conclusions and
>gives others false impressions.
>
>
>
>--
>William X. Walsh
>General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
>The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
>to every time you have something to whimper about.
>
>
>
>
