[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Comment-Dnso] Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] Re: Modifications to ICIIU Guidelines a nd NCDNHC definition
On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 05:44:58 -0400, Michael Sondow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ a écrit:
>> Your complaint about ISOC is that some of its
>> members have commercial interests. The same is true for COMTELCA, a
>> honest, non-profit, non-commercial association whic also furthers the
>> interests of its commercial members
>So far as I am aware, and I can only go by what I have been told by
>Hector Rodriguez Milla and by what I see from its website, COMTELCA
>is a perfectly legitimate non-profit, non-commercial treaty
>organization whose purpose is to further telecommunications
>networking in the Central American region. As such, it qualifies as
>a non-commercial domain name holding organization. It can in no way
>be compared with the for-profit commercial members of ISOC like
>AT&T, Microsoft, Compaq, Time Warner, Hitachi and all the others.
>Your argument, therefore, is absurd.
So the organization that supports you (supposedly) is ok even if it
ONLY has commercial members, but the ISOC who also serves a non-profit
function and has commercial and non-commercial is not?
Spare us Michael, your hypocracy gets worse with each passing day.
Do the honorable thing and step aside and not let the work of the ACM
efforts in the NCDNHC be tainted by your affiliation.
If your goals are honorable, and your ego isn't involved, you will
realize this is the best thing you can do for the effort you claim to
support so much.
William X. Walsh email@example.com
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go
crying to every time you have something
to whimper about.