Re: Notes (fwd)

[Christopher Ambler <chris@iodesign.com>]

> I see. So when you placed a check in a sealed enveloppe and slipped the
> enveloppe into a file folder with some other paper, this was being
> "very clear"?

Michael, this is not how it happened. Bill gave me the envelope and knew
very well what was in it. Who is twisting words now? I believe we've been
over this, no?

> As I read the draft of this document, there is very little hope that any
> company will find a golden egg in the outcome of the IAHC. In other words,
> if you have a business plan that relies on becoming a domain name
> registrar and making lots of money, you had better change those plans now.
> It is quite clear that the IAHC is not going to create a cash cow for
> anyone.

We have no desire to find a 'golden egg,' and if the document creates fairly
created registries sharing all the new gTLDs, that's just fine with us. As
I've said before (again and again), I'm willing to compromise on the issue
of sharing.

Again, as I've said, the only problems I have are with the lottery being
unfair to those denied initial participation, and the 60-day waiting
period. I'm also very concerned how this new policy will be imposed upon
NSI. All other issues are ones that CORE (if created) can handle nicely,
and, once again, as I've said, I intend to participate and even help fund
if necessary.

All I want is fairness for all concerned. My only reason for bringing up
the IANA incidents is that I have less and less hope that the IAHC process
is going to yeild results. If it does not, my company still intends to
run a registry. So rather than get into a pissing contest, let's get this
IAHC process working for everyone, okay?

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