On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 12:11:04PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Karl.
> >
> > We are indeed soliciting comments as you suggest at the end.
>
> What is truly unfortunate is that despite repeated requests you have not
> addressed the substance of Karl's statements.
>
> ICANN willingly and knowingly violated its' own bylaws with the
> ICANN Interim CEO and counsel present in taking actions to have certain
> individuals forcibly ejected from a teleconference. Why?
Because ICANN is supposed to respond to public input, and
overwhelming public input was received that ICANN should revisit its
earlier position regarding NSI.
> Is this an issue that will ever be answered when it is asked by the
> plebs, or will we be forced to have any meaningful question
> asked by a Congressperson in order to receive an answer?
You already know the answer; it has been given several times. You
just don't like the answer. Furthermore, you ask it in a way that
can have no meaningful answer ("Why?"). Finally, these are just
ankle-biting, repetitive, questions for the purposes of being
antagonistic, and after a while people stop paying attention.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
