RE: Re[2]: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:55 AM
> 
> Friday, July 27, 2001, 12:41:53 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > ... and you are just parroting FUD.
> 
> No, he is stating facts, something you seem to be short of.
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I just can't let you get
> > away with this. New.Net didn't have any conflicting TLDs 
> until ICANN chose
> > to create new conflicting TLDs.
> 
> Wrong.  Go back and check with your ORSC croonies.  One of their big
> complaints with new.net when it started was the conflicting TLDs.

MDR happened in Nov00, NewNet hadn't announced existance yet. ICANN
conflicted, with BIZ, in Nov00. That was the signal that it was okay for
NewNet to also conflict. Why not? If ICANN can ignore the ORSC then NewNet
has no reason to acknowlege the ICANN. The facts are that NewNet didn't
conflict because they didn't exist at the time.

> You really need to check your facts and make sure you know the subject
> before commenting on the honesty of another member.

I was at MDR, you were not. I have other reasons to very firmly remember
when NewNet announced existence. The time-line says that I am correct. If
Kent isn't being dishonest then he's senile or at least, badly mistaken. He
makes a habit of making such "mistakes".

> Your message is sanctionable in my opinion and I've asked that you be
> censured by the monitors.

... and for posting such a threat on the GA list I am making my, first ever,
complaint about you.
--
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