Re: Conflict resolution?

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> I suppose I have to reiterate that Bill Manning was NOT speaking
> "personally" at the time. He claims that that is the case now, but
> I and several others who were there believe otherwise. This was an
> IANA topic, at an IANA meeting in the IANA offices, 

This was a meeting that was set up by you, not by IANA. Here is where you
brought up the subject of such a meeting. The check for $1000 is mentioned
promminently.
http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/current/1709.html
http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/current/1739.html

Bill Manning offers to meet at ISI
http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/current/1712.html
http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/current/1859.html
http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/current/2252.html

Obviously this meeting is being advertised as an opportunity for people to
discuss newdom issues in public. Minutes of the meeting are mentioned and
in a later message Bill asks people who want minutes to email him. I and
10 or so other people take him up on the offer and received those minutes. 


The minutes of that meeting do not agree at all with what you have said
happened. One thing that the minutes do say is that everybody there agreed
to follow any operational terms and conditions set forth by IANA. Now that
the ad-hoc committee is in place you are about to find out what those
terms and conditions are going to be.

> and he, on a
> number of occasions, went out of the room to confer with Jon Postel
> on matters. How anyone could infer that he was only speaking for
> himself, *especially* in the light that he never said so, is beyond
> me.

On a number of occasions on the newdom mailing list Bill Manning made it
clear that he only speaks for himself, not IANA. On those occasions he
pointed out that Jon Postel was the only person who spoke for IANA
and that when he was doing so Jon would note that fact.

> But this is all very very immaterial if the IAHC implements a procedure
> significantly similar to the Postel draft under which we were operating.

Which is probably what you hope to accomplish by your arm-twisting here.

However, you are a good example of why the IAHC should not allow any one
organization to have a monopoly on an iTLD.

Michael Dillon                   -               ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael@memra.com