Re: Conflict resolution?

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> >I fail to see why the Internet community should grant you a monopoly
> >simply because you have based a business plan on that monopoly status.
> 
> Initially, I would say because IANA accepted applications for this,

IANA did not accept applications for iTLD registries. Many people on the
newdom list wanted to know what they could do before the iTLD plans were
finalized and Bill Manning suggested that they could fill out an Internic
application for for an iTLD in order to get a publicly recognized
timestamp on it and forward that timestamped rejection notice to IANA.
However it was always quite clear that this did *NOT* constitute an
application for an iTLD registry according to the Postel draft for several
reasons.

1. the Postel draft had not been completed.

2. the precise contents of an application were not yet known.

3. the ad hoc committee to accept and review applications had not yet
   been formed.

I did suggest to some people that they might want to prepare a
*PRELIMINARY* application according to the outline in the Postel draft
and submit that to IANA as an indication of intent and to establish
first-come first-served. But that was my idea, not IANA's.

> we applied along with a business plan, and were told by IANA that we
> could go operational pending procedure finalization. But I've said
> this before, haven't I?

Saying it over and over does not make it true.

> Of course it is not. It's very simple - IANA was in charge, IANA had
> the ability to do this, and IANA did this. When asked how I would go
> about registering an iTLD, IANA told me, point blank, "apply to us,
> and we'll go from there."

How can you say this when you have just opublicly stated that you did not
even meet with IANA. You were right there in the same building as IANA
but you never met either Jon Postel or Joyce Reyes. IANA told you no such
thing.

> This might have been a good ASSUMPTION at the time, but, as I've said,
> rather than assume I asked. As it turns out, my application was not only
> accepted, but was acknowledged as first and only, given permission to
> begin operations, and payment accepted. Again, what would you have had me
> do?

Stop lying perhaps? You put a cheque for $1000 in a sealed enveloppe and
slipped it into a file folder with notes from the meeting. To turn around
and claim that this cynical and sleazy act of yours constitutes an
accepted payment is despicable. And if this kind of borderline fraudulent
action characterizes your company then I would hope that the IAHC never
offers you the responnsibility of maintaining an international TLD.

Would you care to dig your hole deeper? 

> Yes, but that's part of our business and marketing plan that I'd rather
> not discuss. I'm sure you understand that.

It's because you plan to spend a rather large amount of money on
advertising to establish .WEB as a trendy iTLD and the first one that
people should try when looking for information. In other words you will
treat .WEB as a new brand and use standard marketing and advertising
techniques to establish the brand in the market. This requires that you
have exclusive control over that brand name.

The question is whether we want to give anybody that kind of exclusive
control over a public resource.

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