William and all IDNO members,
I have been following this situation closely. William you know you spoke
too soon in declaring the IDNO "Defunct" and stating that the IDNO mailing
list was no longer in service. This of course has now been shown to be
completely false, as you well know. Do yourself a favor and recant, instead
of attempting to equivocate as you are doing below in your comments. In
recanting you will be clearing the air, and regain some consideration of
reasonableness to your reputation. You must do it publicly however,
which can be embarrassing temporarily, but not overly so. Please recant
quickly though as time is of the essence in your own regard here.
A word to the wise should be sufficient.
William X. Walsh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 17-Jan-2000 Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > The following excerpt is from the GA list:
> >
> >
> >> On 16-Jan-2000 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >> > - How are we going to proceed for the Individual Domain Name holders
> >> > constituency?
> >>
> >
> > And our "member" WXW replied:
> >
> >> Right now there is really no effort underway for such a constituency. The
> > one
> >> that was underway has been defunct for some time, doesn't even have a
> > mailing
> >> list anymore.
>
> Let's clarify a little, Joop, rather than take things out of context, as you
> are so very very good at.
>
> 1) The IDNO list has not been functioning AT ALL for weeks now. Several
> messages to this list have bounced with errors. One test message sent 4 days
> ago JUST barely missed fatally bouncing by being deliverable only 1 hour before
> the 96 hour bounce limit.
>
> 2) I made 2 posts to you about the IDNO list, and what was going on with it,
> and why I was receiving no posts from it. You never responded to those
> messages.
>
> 3) The GA chair brought up POSSIBLE agenda items, and asked what we wanted to
> do about them.
>
> Now, the IDNO list has not been functional for weeks, messages to the self
> appointed dictator of the IDNO about why went unanswered, the IDNO was now 2
> full weeks behind its own schedule for work under the RR proposal, etc.
>
> Not to mention that nearly ALL of the founding members have abandoned support
> for the Joop IDNO effort.
>
> Now, I would say that my comment about the IDNO being defunct was timely and
> right on target.
>
> At the very minimum it finally got some of you to get off your butt and try and
> resurrect it and get the list back working! It only took two comments about
> the IDNO being defunct within the same week to the GA list to get this to
> happen.
>
> So it appears that only when publicly embarrassed did Joop actually start to
> look into why his little Group had absolutely no activity whatsoever for so
> many weeks. Is that the kind of behavior to be expect from a non-defunct group?
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
> DSo Networks http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
>
> iD8DBQE4g7Wj8zLmV94Pz+IRAgV3AJ4+dsX3fmtcnzWB5Z+TKVrdG8IbcQCeJTmx
> nYpOqKYOqfgkiKRFkKL4rYw=
> =P3RA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idno-discuss mailing list
> Idno-discuss@idno.org
> http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss
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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208