Re: [ga] Re: NCDNHC supported an individual domain name holders constituency in principle

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 12:09 16/12/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>Nobody is lying, nobody has been called a liar, and there are no actual
>facts that are in dispute.  The issue is the SIGNIFICANCE of the 
>non-disputed facts.
>

I recall that Mr Walsh took the opportunity to take an offensive swipe at
the veracity of the quoted tresolution. 
Now Vany has spoken out, an apology would be part of normal civil discourse.

Otherwise I can accept that the issue is in the significance. 
I may presume that all NCDNHC members who agreed on that resolution in
Santiago would find it pretty significant.
You, of course, do not.

I hear things are not well in the NCDNHC constituency.

Did you and Mr Crocker manage to prevent that there was a constituency
-wide vote on the issue?
If so, is the more important issue not what registry/registrar advocates
are doing in a Domain Name Holder constituency?


--Joop--
www.idno.org
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html