Re: Notes (fwd)

[chris@hal.iodesign.com (Christopher Ambler)]

>Because his public statements have more weight, IMHO, than your personal
>account of a meeting. Bill also stated publicly that he was hosting
>a meeting "In the IETF tradition...". This tradition is that face-to-face
>meetings are held to discuss issues but never to make any decisions.

The meeting was rather irrespective of his words with us, which happened
after the meeting, while everyone was there and getting ready to
leave. This is not my personal account, this is the account of those
who were there. You were not there, and you are arguing against
facts - that's rather hard to do. Simon Higgs has, on many occasions,
posted exactly what transpired; why are you ignoring this?

>As you can see, Bill said the same thing in somewhat more detail in 
>a public message on the newdom list which I also posted here. Note the
>emphasis on "experimental". 

Again, what bill has said publically is irrelevant to what he said
in the ISI offices on 31 July. Many people say one thing, and later,
changing their mind, say another publically. We have one of those 
situations right here.

>The fact is that your commercial plans to operate a private brand DNS
>registry for the .WEB domain appear to be screwed. You jumped to the wrong
>conclusions when reading Jon Postel's draft proposal.

Perhaps, which is why I asked Bill for a clarification and got one.
Our plans are far from 'screwed.' 

>1. You failed to understand that a "draft" proposal is a discussion
>   document that attempts to nail down a perceived consensus. It is not
>   an edict from on high and is not something to use as the basis
>   for a business plan.

You fail to understand that the Postel draft is wholly aside to what
IANA told us. The fact that it was a draft was exactly the reason
that we asked if we could go operational for testing, under the
knowledge that the draft might take a considerable time to flesh
out. Notice that the notes that Mr. Manning posted include, as the
first item, the position that prior use would be a major factor
in determining awards of TLDs. We agreed to all other IANA-drafted
points, and this prior-use statement was, in the fullness of the
meeting, intended as an indication of our claim to .WEB, and the
award thereof as a result of the agreement by IANA for Image Online
Design to bring our .WEB registry online for operational testing.

>3. You also failed to understand the nature of IANA and from your
>   statement above where you claim that Bill Manning is a "representative"
>   of IANA, it appears you still misunderstand. IANA is not an
>   organization and thus it has no representatives. 

Then why was Bill constantly excusing himself to confer with Jon
Postel throughout the meeting? If IANA is simply Mr. Postel, then
Bill Manning represented himself as the representative of Mr. Postel
when speaking to me about our registry. Why was Bill Manning taking
points on the draft for revision? Why did Bill Manning tell us that
he was working on the draft with Jon Postel?

Your other two points are relevant to the Postel draft directly, which
I have stated is irrespective to the problem at hand. The problem, then,
is that Bill Manning represented himself as an IANA member at that time
and made certain statements of direction to us. If he was a member of
IANA, then we have witnesses to that fact. If, on the other hand, he
was not, then Bill Manning has defrauded us. Perhaps Bill might like
to comment upon this?

Whichever it is will be very irrelevant, however, should the IAHC
implement a policy in which we are satasfied that there is reasonable
compromise under which we participate. This is not too much to ask.

--
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.