Stef and all,
I don't know the answer Stef, hence my reason for asking in the first place.
Kind of a normal thing to do when one doesn't have the answer, yet the
question still lingers.
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Jeff -- If you know thew answer to your question better than I do,
> then please a
Jeff -- If you know thew answer to your question better than I do,
then please answer if for yourself.
I am not at all interested in playing 20 questions with you.
Over and out;-)...\Stef
>From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:37:16 -0800 (PST):
}
}
}No he didn't. Because the information conta
No he didn't. Because the information contains information of a private
nature, I need him to state that it is ok to post that information, clearly and
concisely. I've emailed him privately asking for this permission, not
surprisingly he won't answer those mails.
I did not personally collect t
Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:20 +:
> }
> }Stef and all,
>
> } BTW Stef, what ever happened to what we had discussed regarding the NIST
> }protest filing? You seemed to have gone back to sitting on the fence again as
> }Roeland had suggest
At 1:29 AM -0800 2/10/99, William X. Walsh wrote:
>If you truly have nothing to hide, and you want to stick to the corner you
>just
>painted yourself into (that we should seek out information we desire on you on
>our own) then now give permission for that information that has been
>sought out
>abo
>From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:47:20 +:
}
}Stef and all,
} BTW Stef, what ever happened to what we had discussed regarding the NIST
}protest filing? You seemed to have gone back to sitting on the fence again as
}Roeland had suggested back on Jan. 22nd. Care to elaborate?
}
ORSC pr
Stef and all,
I completely agree with you here Stef, however William seems to have a need
to demonize others as an significant part of his personality trait I suppose.
BTW Stef, what ever happened to what we had discussed regarding the NIST
protest filing? You seemed to have gone back to si
Jeff and William --
How about knocking off your food fight.
If Jeff is just blowing smoke it will become evident. All you need to
do is ask once for some documentation, and if none is forthcoming,
that speaks for itself.
As for claims of support for DNSO applications, Jeffs claims will have
to
Does this mean I have permission to publish the information online with a
reference to the location on this list?
On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> Pisanty and all,
>
>Agreed. You may not realize this but this is a constant mantra that
> William Walsh has taken for some time. He is
Pisanty and all,
Agreed. You may not realize this but this is a constant mantra that
William Walsh has taken for some time. He is a extremely disturbed
individual, and it may be useful for you to recognize this when reading
his posts...
Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is thi
On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > Well, Jeff, if you still feel you have nothing to hide, please give me
> > permission to post the information.
>
>You may post whatever you wish, it is a free country after all. Of
> course,
> most of your postings have been of questionable origin in
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> First of all I am still awaiting an answer to this request.
>
> Secondly, apprarently the people in charge at the Texas Stadium indicate that
> there is NO meeting for that day, or any day.
We are still working on the finalization of said contract fo
Greg and all,
However the ICANN has been challenged legally an from the contract
through
the NIST on January 19th by at least 5 other organizations, as Beck Burr
is well
aware of and has thus far has not completely reviewed those protests under
that contract Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020. Hen
First of all I am still awaiting an answer to this request.
Secondly, apprarently the people in charge at the Texas Stadium indicate that
there is NO meeting for that day, or any day.
Of course, anyone with any bit of common sense knew this already. When an
event that might draw 25,000 people t
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gordon Cook makes a good point that has been made over and over again
>Mike. What is the essence of the ICANN's authority? It is not even
>completely constituted yet.
ICANN derives its authority from the NTIA, under the DoC, etc. So
what is the US gov
On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
>Our responsibility legally has bee fulfilled. If it is specific
> information
> that you request, it is YOUR responsibility to acquire it through channels
> that are publicly available. Any information that I or any of us would
> provide would just be
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Jeff, it is not our responsibility to get it, it is your responsibility to post
> it to the forums you claim to be representing your "members" on.
We respectfully don't agree.
>
>
> It is YOUR responsbility to post it here.
Our responsibility leg
On 10-Feb-99 Mike Roberts wrote:
> With respect to the rest of the email, you present a compelling
> case for your vision of the future of the Internet name and
> address system. However, it is your case and your opinion,
> to which you are richly entitled in our democracy. Others
> may
Jeff, it is not our responsibility to get it, it is your responsibility to post
it to the forums you claim to be representing your "members" on.
It is YOUR responsbility to post it here.
See, your claims about FOIA filings is just so much hot air. Such requests
will not result in any informati
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > William and all,
> >
> > William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > But let me quote from you and apply it to this process :
> > >
> > >"Company, group, or organization representatives, must have an
> > >affidavit
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 10-Feb-99 Mike Roberts wrote:
> > With respect to the rest of the email, you present a compelling
> > case for your vision of the future of the Internet name and
> > address system. However, it is your case and your opinion,
> > to which you are
>On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10-Feb-99 Mike Roberts wrote:
>> > With respect to the rest of the email, you present a compelling
>> > case for your vision of the future of the Internet name and
>> > address system. However, it is your case and your opinion,
>> > to w
On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
> William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > But let me quote from you and apply it to this process :
> >
> >"Company, group, or organization representatives, must have an
> >affidavit from their members to represent their respective
> >
On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
>Good point here William. Yet we find it extrodinarly ironic that you
> don't
> practice or at least practice what you preach.
We? Is that you and the motocross teams? Or the mouse in your pocket?
But let me quote from you and apply it to this process
Gordon and all,
Gordon Cook makes a good point that has been made over and over again
Mike. What is the essence of the ICANN's authority? It is not even completely
constituted yet. The ICANN Interim Board presently really is not in any
position to be making any decisions or even set a proce
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 10-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> >Good point here William. Yet we find it extrodinarly ironic that you
> > don't
> > practice or at least practice what you preach.
>
> We? Is that you and the motocross teams? Or the mouse in your pocket?
>
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
