My dear Mr. Weisberg (was) Returned mail: User unknown (fwd)

having done a reply to mr. Weisberg's latest, i got a bounce as shown
below.  but note please there IS content in the message and in order that
the content be public I am sending it this time only to nair and com-priv

---------- Forwarded message ----------
 
   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<"pagan at apnic.net, naipr at arin.net, com-priv"@lists.psi.com>

    ----- Original message follows -----
	  id NAA23002; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 13:22:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 13:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gordon Cook <cook at netaxs.com>
To: Eric Weisberg <weisberg at texoma.net>
cc: multiple recipients <"pagan at apnic.net, naipr at arin.net, com-priv"@lists.psi.com>,
        "farber at cis.upenn.edu" <farber at cis.upenn.edu>,
        Pagans <pagans at texoma.net>
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations
In-Reply-To: <33D23C8F.9C4 at texoma.net>

Mr. Weisberg:

In my opinion you change your shades of coloring on people and issues
faster than a chamelion.

Read Robert T. Nelson's response of last evening to Larry's "BRAVO"
comment.  Respond to the content of that without twisting it all out of
shape.

I have asked you once already not to twist my words and impute your own
meaning to them. I now ask you a second time.  If there is a third
instance I shall publish:

Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:34:25 -0500
From: Eric Weisberg <weisberg at texoma.net>
To: Gordon Cook <cook at netaxs.com>
Cc: sr-management at texoma.net
Subject: Thanks for caring

Unless of course you would like to give me permission to publish this
private correspondence now.

In the 6 years of my newsletter I have never published any private
correspondence before.  But your approach to twisting out of context what
I say is driving me to think seriously about whether you are giving up any
reasonable expectation of rights to privacy of this communication.

You are *NOT* going to get yourself a 19/ by your on going verbal
assaults.  And you are also NOT going to overturn Internic, arin, or
current IP allocation policy with your current behavior.

************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet               For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              visit   http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com             On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************


On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote:

> Gordon Cook wrote:
> > 
> > uh huh....yeah...bravo.....
> > 
> > so what are you going to do?  design and build a united nations like
> > bureaucracy with proprtional representation from everywhere on earth we
> > can have every one debate and come out with a truly "representative"
> > solution for ip allocation policy?
> 
> Gordon, "we" build what we need (please note the "inclusive" pronoun,
> "we").  "You" are already proposing an organization to do this job.  Our
> difference is not on the "if" but on the "how,"  not on the "why" but on
> the "what" and on the "when."
> 
> Furthermore, if your objection is to the development of policy through
> public discussion, I fear you are treading on dangerous ground and ask
> you to reexamine your statement.  Open discussion of these issues is
> precisely what we advocate and what we fear you will lose when you go to
> a $1,000/plate membership.  Remember, ARIN discussions will be limited
> to its members, and those members will be defined by no other criteria
> than the interest in and ability to put up $1,000 just for the "right"
> to discuss and vote.  Some entities will have multiple representatives
> while others will have none.
> > 
> > any body got any idea of the money needed to support that?  or the time
> > given the caucophany of this mail list needed to arrive at any kind
> > of operational policy?  the cost of a 19/ needed to support that type of
> > operation would be pretty awesome.
> > 
> > go ahead....be our guest....just don't guarantee anyone routable numbers
> > until you have IANA's agreement that it supports your move.
> 
> Gordon, I do not know the IANA, especially Jon Postel, so I will not
> guess at what it/they/he will do.  Let's assume for the purposes of this
> discussion that it/they/he will attempt to apply rational, objective,
> and fair criteria to any application in the interest of a globally sound
> result.  Let us further assume that those criteria and the propriety of
> any result we may urge will be given a fair and open hearing.  Finally,
> let's assume that there will be some avenue of review of any decision
> made.
>   
> In other words, let's not prejuege that issue.  Rather, let US (all of
> us, together, here and now) consider and decide how to proceed at this
> level and leave predictions of the IANA'S actions or reactions for
> another day.
> > 
> > ************************************************************************
> > The COOK Report on Internet               For subsc. pricing & more than
> > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     ten megabytes of free material
> > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              visit   http://cookreport.com/
> > Internet: cook at cookreport.com             On line speech of critics under
> > attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
> > ************************************************************************
> > 
> > On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Larry Vaden wrote:
> > 
> > > At 11:27 AM 7/19/97 -0500, Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >THIS is the question I have been trying to get an answer to!
> > > >
> > > >If you want a network that can be governed in a democratic fashion, you
> > > >have to *design that into the network*
> > >
> > > BRAVO!
> > >
> > >
> 
> -- 
> Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
> Internet Texoma, Inc.
> The ISP which DIDN'T
>