Re: Notes (fwd)

["Leo Smith" <barter@ntplx.net>]

Chris...two things on your issue of what bill manning promised you and what
steps you took based on his promise. 
As your legal counsel will tell you, the first issue is whether or not bill
had the authority to bind IANA to commitments he made. 
The second issue is whether or not consideration was received.
Consideration is a critical element in contract law, which holds that in
order for a contractual obligation to apply, an exchange must first take
place such that IANA receives a benefit (consideration) from you. An clear
example of consideration: If bill's authorization for you to go forward was
conditioned upon the payment by you of a fee to IANA, and if you, after
making such payment, had then gone forward. Even if bill's words to you are
held to bind IANA, and even if your investment in equipment is held to be a
valid consideration under contract law, your right to recover damages from
IANA is limited to the money you actually spent after bill's promise was
made, less any income that was generated from sales of the experimental
gTLDs. That amount may or may not be worth the cost of litigation. Since
the meeting took place in California, rules of jurisdiction would normally
require that your lawsuit be filed in the California state court where the
defendant (IANA) resides, and as a result would probably require you to be
represented by counsel admitted to practice law in the state of California.

While it would be costly to hire outside counsel to pursue this action in
your name only, there might be others out there that would share in the
expenses if they felt that their interests were protected by doing so.

Perhaps the issue of what bill manning said to you at that meeting, and
what you did based on his statements, should be addressed privately between
you and bill.