Re: Notes (fwd)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Michael,

 Tis sort of discourse needs to come to a IMMEDIATE HALT.  Continueing
this discourse can result in sever problems that are conducting it and
I am sure none of you want to go down that road.  

  There have been outragious allogations thrown around on this list
at my expense as well.  I see no reason for anybody to do such a 
thing without VERY GOOD reason and some unrefutable facts.  I don't
see any in this posting. 

Michael Dillon wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> > >   The IANA is a small "level of effort" task using several people part
> > >   time.  The total of the effort adds up to the equivalent about 1.5 full
> > >   time staff.  The individuals currently involved are Jon Postel, Joyce
> > >   K. Reynolds, Nehal Bhau, and Bill Manning.
> >
> > Ah, then Bill Manning *is* a member of IANA. Thank you.
> 
> There you go, twisting people's words again. I'm beginning to understand
> why the word "wicked" originates in an Indo-european root meaning "to
> twist". The statement by Jon Postel that I quoted seems to clearly
> indicate that Bill Manning is not a member of IANA and never was a member
> of IANA. It describes IANA as a "task" not as an "organization" and it
> indicates that Bill was involved in the IANA tasks at that point in time.
> For all we know he may have been reviewing MIB's for network access
> servers prior to registering them.
> 
> > >Quite frankly, if you stood up in a court of law and said "We made a deal
> > >with Bill" the first thing the judge is going to ask is "Was there any
> > >consideration exchanged, i.e. did money change hands?". Without money
> > >changing hands there is no legally binding contract in all the
> > >countries whose legal systems descend from English common law.
> >
> > And now we get back to that $1000 check that Bill accepted.
> 
> In researching the public side of this story I find that the NEWDOM
> archive at ar.com is actually missing messages from early August. I
> discovered a reply that I posted to that list on August 2nd but my records
> indicated that the original message was also posted to
> domain-policy@internic.net so I examined their archives at
> ftp://rs.internic.net/archives/domain-policy/domain-policy.9608
> 
>     From owner-domain-policy@lists.internic.net  Fri Aug  2 12:09:43 1996
>     Received: from zephyr.isi.edu (zephyr.isi.edu [128.9.160.160]) by
>         ops.internic.net (8.7.4/InterNIC-RS) with SMTP id MAA19626 for
>         <DOMAIN-POLICY@internic.net>; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:09:42 -0400 (EDT)
>     Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23)
>         id <AA20790>; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:08:51 -0700
>     Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:08:51 -0700
>     From: postel@ISI.EDU (Jon Postel)
>     Message-Id: <199608021608.AA20790@zephyr.isi.edu>
>     To: JimFleming@unety.net, tim@fastlane.ca
>     Subject: RE: IANA Payments
>     Cc: clifford@AGDIS01.NEWARK.AF.MIL, CompLaw@CompLaw.com,
>         dlj@pobox.com,
>         domain-noi@global.ilpf.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@internic.net,
>         iltf-news@infomeister.osc.edu, net-lawyers@lawlib.wuacc.edu,
>         newdom@ar.com, SNYDER@clm.com
> 
>     Hello:
> 
>     The suggestion that the IANA is accepting money to reserve new
>     top-level domain is completely false.
> 
>     The IANA has not accepted any money in any form from anyone for domain
>     name registration, name reservation, or other top level domain related
>     function.
> 
>     --jon.
> 
> This was in reply to a rude, insinuating message written by Jim Fleming in
> which he implies that because people are sending email applications to
> IANA, therefore IANA must be collecting money. This was 3 days after the
> meeting at ISI's offices. Here is a fragment from Fleming's message:
> 
>     Early reports from the IANA meeting this week indicate that they (the
>     IANA) were accepting $1,000 payments (donations?) to help provide a
>     little grease to keep the process moving...
> 
> A little later in the archive the attendees at the meeting are revealed:
> 
>     Chris Ambler  <chris@iodesign.com>
>     John Frangie <john@hal.iodesign.com>
>     Simmon Higgs <simmon@higgs.com>
>     Dan Busarow <dan@dpcsys.com>
>     Michael Gersten <michael@stb.info.com>
>     Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>
> 
> Then Karl Denninger says:
> 
>     Are you saying that none of them would ever take a sealed envelope
>     from anyone without knowing what was inside of it?
> 
>     I have just gotten off a 45 minute phone call in which that specific
>     statement was made.
> 
> This is the first mention of the possibility that somebody gave IANA a
> sealed enveloppe with a check inside. Shortly afterwards Chris Ambler
> posted a message that included this statement:
> 
>     The issue of funds has been brought up, so here is what happened. I
>     gave Bill Manning an envelope to include with our application to
>     the IANA. As per the last draft, the fee for an application was
>     outlined, and I felt it a good business decision to have that
>     included with my application. No more, no less. Anything else is
>     pure fabrication.
> 
> Once it was clear that there was a check in a sealed enveloppe, the
> enveloppe was returned unopened as Bill Manning reports here:
> 
>         This envelope was stacked in to a manila folder with the
>         handwritten notes from the mtg and some other papers that
>         Simon and Dan left with me.
> 
>         The sealed, un-opened envelope has been returned to Chris
>         via certified mail.
> 
>         Jon Postel was in no way involved in the meeting or discussions.
>         The IANA activity was not responsible for the meeting or the
>         actions of any of its attendes.
> 
>         When a valid process for new registry creation for operation
>         of Intenet Top Level Domains is approved, then is the time
>         for proper application, with any fees as appropriate.
> 
> Simon Higgs who was at that meeting then confirmed what happened as
> follows:
> 
>     >The IANA has not accepted any money in any form from anyone for
>     >domain name registration, name reservation, or other top level domain
>     >related function.
>     >
>     >--jon.
> 
>     This is a true statement. See below.
> 
>     [a requote of Chris's message has been removed here - md]
> 
>     I was at the table, sitting next to Chris as he wrote out the check.
>     At the time it was explained by Chris that it was written to fulfill
>     the requirements of a registry/TLD application fee described in the
>     current work-in-progress draft-postel. You can go read draft-postel to
>     get the fine-print.
> 
>     The check was refused by Bill Manning on behalf of IANA about a dozen
>     times over the course of the meeting. Chris then requested that a
>     sealed envelope be attached to his TLD application.
> 
>     Unless IANA have opened that envelope, found a check inside, issued a
>     receipt for that application fee, and reserved a particular TLD for
>     Chris, Jon Postel's statement is entirely true.
> 
>     I understand that the envelope in question is being returned to Chris
>     to avoid further confusion.
> 
> > You are, however, making many assumptions
> > about a meeting which you did NOT attend.
> 
> I'm dealing with the *PUBLIC* record which is somewhat at odds with
> your version of events. I don't need to attend a meeting in order to study
> the public record.
> 
> > At the meeting, Bill asked me to provide him with a Perl script that
> > would be used to count the number of SLDs that a registry had, in
> > order to determine what the 2% yearly fee should be. Why did he ask
> > me to do this if he were not working on it for IANA?
> 
> Thousands of people on the Internet write code to do interesting and
> useful things and then share that code freely with their peers.
> 
> > You've shown that
> > he was a member of IANA at the time as well.
> 
> He was doing stuff with the routing arbiter project and the NAPS and
> something to do with tools development (i.e. useful PERL scripts) for
> network operators. And this is just stuff that I know secondhand from
> reading web pages and mailing list traffic. He also runs a very famous and
> successful Bait and Sushi shop. But alas, he was not an IANA member, just
> helping them out with some tasks that the main IANA people, Joyce and Jon,
> didn't have time to do.
> 
> > IANA, in anticipation of the Postel draft becoming RFC, gave us the
> > go-ahead to go active with operational testing. It's all rather clear,
> > I'm afraid, regardless of your curious passion on the subject.
> 
> I think that Bill Manning's message of July 23rd is quite clear what
> operational testing means.
> 
> > And you seem to have a personal vendetta against a company that has set
> > up a registry in good faith after confering with the authority at the
> > time. All we did is what IANA told us we could do. Nothing more, nothing
> > less. If this comes down to a question in a court, then so be it.
> > Otherwise, your constant attacks on the facts as they've been shown
> > is beginning to actually anger me
> 
> Don't take it so seriously. It's like a game of chess, you do have the
> option to resign the game.

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com