Re: Conflict resolution?

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Chris,

	In a perfect world, we could figure out a way to smooth this issue
over without the tension it is causing or the potential for dissatisfied
participants.  And, in fact, none of us can guarantee the eventual outcome
won't be just dandy for you and the others involved in these earlier
discussions.

	But the current discussion is based on a concern that things WON'T
turn out dandy for you, so in that vein...

At 10:38 AM -0800 11/20/96, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>we applied along with a business plan, and were told by IANA that we
>could go operational pending procedure finalization. But I've said

	First, I need to observe that those procedures were never
finalized, as far as I'm aware.  In fact, I think the failure to finalize
those procedures is why the IAHC was formed.  Further, the IAHC was very
much NOT formed to rubberstamp Jon Postel's proposal.  That's not a comment
on its quality but, rather, on the nature of the IAHC.  Otherwise, why
solicit proposals?

	So, we're not a rubber stamp; in fact there are no guarantees about
ANY of the details that might be proposed by the IAHC.

	So, no finalization and no definitive strictures on IAHC choices.
That's two, very basic reasons the constraints you are seeking can't be
applied.  (Again, that doesn't mean that the outcome you are seeking won't
happen, merely that it isn't required.)

	And as a personal aside I'll comment that the number of times I've
been in a business negotion and gotten everything agreed to "pending
finalization" only to have the entire deal fall through is too painful to
count.

	In any event, just to be thorough, I will personally request that
you provide the IAHC with a relatively formal (by which I mean carefully
written and possibly vetted by an attorney) statement of the basis by which
you believe you have a claim and the nature of that claim.  Yes, you've
probably offered all the relevant information online but this is an
important enough topic that I'd like to make sure the committee can review
it in toto, with no ambiguity or other potential for missing key
information.

d/

ps.  I wasn't in the fated room for the meeting in question, but I do
recall the online exchange right afterward.  Whatever took place in the
room, the clarification of non-officialness and the return of any checks
took place immediately.  California has a 72 hour grace period on various
kinds of contract signings and I think this even happened within that
time...  (oh, and since I don't use smileys I had better make sure people
know that the reference is intended only to lighten things up a bit.)

pps. another oh yes.  on another personal note I want to state appreciation
for your tone.  I can't judge the facts surrounding the fated meeting, but
I definitely CAN judge the style of your contribution to the current
discussions and the fact that your vigorous advocacy is being conducted in
a professional manner is thoroughly appreciate by me, at least.

--------------------
Dave Crocker                                             +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                              fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr.                                  dcrocker@brandenburg.com
Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA                        http://www.brandenburg.com

Internet Mail Consortium                http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org