[EMAIL PROTECTED] a �crit:
>
> Besides the fact that it is Jon, not John, and that everybody should be able
> to decide by him/herself whether he/she is in need to read something or not,
> my opinion is that Paul's reply should not be isolated from the context,
> which was a forwarded message by Richard that is probably not of great
> interest to the participants to this mailing list (in fact, the only comment
> I saw to the original post was from Karl, who would have read it in the IETF
> lists anyhow).
Mr. Vixie, like all the root-server operators who slavishly follow
the dictates of the ISOC/CORE controlled ICANN board, has stubbornly
refused
to have any communication whatsoever with the IFWP, the only
assembly ever formed subsequent to the White Paper that can even
pretend to be a community of Internet stakeholders. His reply to
Richard Sexton was intended as an insult to this list, but it is
unwittingly an admission by Mr. Vixie of his own narrow-mindedness,
prejudice, and, in typical IETF fashion, authoritarian behavior.
> I agree with Paul Vixie that a message should be distributed to the relevant
> discussion groups (which in the specific case did not include the IFWP), and
> not Urbi et Orbi.
Mr. Vixie and his like use discussion lists as a means of passing
information between closed circles in order to avoid openness,
transparency, and accountability. The creators of the phoney DNSO
learned how to manipulate mailing lists from these people.
> In fact you did not react to the original message, but just to the
> forwarding to the public list of a private message from Paul to Richard
> (BTW, I thought that it was not really compliant with Netiquette...)
It wasn't my breach of netiquette. I responded to Mr. Vixie's
ridiculous and self-accusatory response.
============================================================
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (212)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================
