Re: Conflict resolution?

[Aveek Datta <MoNoLiTH+@CMU.EDU>]

Excerpts from newdom: 19-Nov-96 Re: Conflict resolution? by Christopher
Ambler@iodes 
> In addition, please see the newdom archives where Bill Manning said that
> he did, indeed, tell us to go online with .WEB for operational testing
> pending approval. Bill now claims that he was speaking for himself and
> not for IANA, yet at the time he was holding an informal meeting at the
> IANA (ISI) offices, about an IANA procedure, and was making statements on
> behalf of IANA all afternoon. He never once said that he was speaking
> for himself rather than for IANA. This can be corroborated by Simon Higgs
> who was also at that meeting. To summarize, however, Bill Manning told
> me that IANA was in receipt of our application for .WEB, we were the
> first and to his knowledge the only application for .WEB, and he
> expected the procedure to be done by October 1 (but in his defence, he
> did state that this was not firm, and it could be as long as the end
> of the year).

In other words Bill Manning told you all this in his personal capacity,
not in an official capacity. Rather than assuming someone is speaking
for his company, I generally assume they speak only for themselves. Like
I would assume you do not hold Carnegie Mellon President Robert
Mehrabian responsible for my comments. Like this one: CMU is a pain in
thet @#^%@$#^#$

> The events around IANA accepting our $1000 application fee are well known
> by now, and continue to generate rumour and speculation despite the
> whole story being posted to newdom and all attendees agreeing on what
> happened.

That's all fine and dandy but really means nothing in the end.

> Look, I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble here, but the fact
> remains that there are many problems with IANA's handling of the whole
> situation. These problems may very well be moot depending on the
> decisions of the IAHC, which is why I am not taking any action at this
> time. I would much rather see the IAHC honour the promises of IANA.

That much I agree with you. IANA screwed up by being Charlie Brown like
on the whole thing -- wishy washy. Despite the fact I disagree with you,
one thing is clear; IANA members did not act in a clear fashion as IAHC
members are attempting to: much confusion lies between the distinction
between a member of IANA's personal opinion and that of IANA.

> The IAHC appears to be examining the situation in a genuinely open
> manner, and appears to be intent on progress. That's the best thing to
> happen to this whole situation in almost a year, and I, more than
> anyone, want to see this completed so we can get on with the business
> of running our registry.

Of course I disagree, but you should know my reasons why very well by
now, and I know your reasons now. At this point it seems we can both
blame IANA for these difficulties and wait for IAHC or someone else to
sort it out. You probably will win, honestly, because you have more
financial backing and more at stake on a personal level. Sure I want to
do my part to make sure the net remains a good, 'free', and FAIR place
to be, but not on my budget.

I still will go on ahead and come up with a proposal to replace FCFS,
but I will definitely have to add a footnote with the new information
Chris presented to me. He definitely has a case. Now with Chris it might
not be a big deal; he seems to be competent (that's all I can tell from
here :)) and genuinely interested. Some of the others that will use this
argument however....

Groan.

 Aveek Datta           _ _ _   _                Email: aveek@andrew.cmu.edu
    _ __  ___ _ _  ___| (_) |_| |_     |W|   HomePage:         datta.ml.org
  _| '  \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | |  _| ' \ _  |E|    FreeDNS:           www.ml.org
 (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B|       Work:      www.itc.cmu.edu