Joe and all,
Well I imagine that Kent sees his ass every time he looks
into the mirror. >;) The close proximity of his ass to his face
has never ceased to amaze me. This situation not withstanding.
J. Baptista wrote:
> Kent - watch your ass dear boy. Looks look's like the ICANN kook's are
> going to start the spy trip. Your no Robert Shaw. Shaw is a fool with
> some diplomatic immunity. Your welcome Kent to play the fool, just
> remember you have no diplomatic immunity from libel and slander.
>
> Now Kent, when do we find out about your moon rock collection ;-)
>
> Regards
> Joe
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 10:07:25AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14 October 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Jay Fenello in the news:
> > > >
> > > >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/circuits/articles/14spin.html
> > > >
> > > >Is it relevant that someone is paid by an entity with a major
> > > >financial stake in the issues?
> > > >
> > > >Richard Sexton and Tony Rutkowski have also acknowledged being paid
> > > >consultants of NSI. All three claim that this has nothing to do with
> > > >what they say -- that is, that NSI supports them because of what they
> > > >have a natural inclination to say.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, Kent. Heaven forbid, someone with a major financial stake in
> > > the issues should participate in forming DNS issues.
> >
> > As you well know, the issue is deception.
> >
> > > ..oh, wait, that's
> > > pretty much every participant in the DNSO, isn't it?
> >
> > Absolutely not. From my personal knowledge: I don't have any
> > financial stake. Dave Crocker doesn't. David Maher doesn't. Javier
> > Sola doesn't. Roberto Gaetano doesn't. Karl Auerbach, I believe,
> > has no financial stake. None of the ICANN Board, to my knowledge,
> > has any financial stake in DNS issues. My impression is that *you*
> > don't have a financial stake....
> >
> > > Kent, ICANN is nothing *but* monied interests. There's only a handful
> > > of people with any actual say in the proceedings that don't have
> > > a financial interest in the outcome.
> >
> > None of the board has a financial interest in the outcome.
> >
> > > Those of us who do not stand
> > > to gain financially and do not currently have any kind of direct
> > > say in what goes on keep trying to change that, and keep getting
> > > batted down by the large-money folks.
> >
> > What do you mean by "direct say"? Tell me how it is, for example,
> > that MCI has a "direct say". Could you point out to me where MCI
> > gets to make direct vote on any ICANN policy matter?
> >
> > Or maybe a big TM interest, like Disney. Could you point out to me
> > where we see Disney's direct vote on any ICANN policy matter?
> >
> > It looks to me like *every* entity goes through some number of levels
> > of representation, and what you are concerned about is number of
> > levels. Is that true?
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
