Re: Notes (fwd)

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 5:57 PM -0800 1/2/97, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> > At 4:26 PM -0800 1/2/97, Christopher Ambler wrote
>
> >  >This is getting us nowhere.
>
> > Oh, I wouldn't say that. Your credibility is getting on a par with Jeff's.
>
> I find it disheartening that my credibility is being judged based on the
> impression that others are presenting based on what they THINK happened at
> a meeting that they did not attend. What has been posted and said publically
> is of absolutely no importance to what was said at the meeting. Michael has
> posted many messages directly contradicting what I'm claiming, - that's not
> disputed by me at all - but nobody has come out and said that Bill Manning
> did not make the statements that I claim he made. Would anyone like to do
> that? If so, I'd love to know how you know, not being at the meeting.
>
> Simon, who was at the meeting, has said that Bill did, indeed, make those
> statements. Simon seems to think that Bill intended his statements to mean
> experimentally, whereas I do not. So we have a difference of opinion.
>

I really don't think the status makes much difference. The applications
went in, and the registries went live in order to fulfill the
requirements of the  application process being discussed. Even the
criteria discussed within the IANA conference room took the whole
process from an academic exercise to a viable and operational business
model. IANA made an official statement that they were committed to
going forward with the process, and several organizations "wed"
themselves to that process. That is most certainly not a crime.

After all, there were more TLDs specified in draft-postel than the
number of unique names that were requested from IANA.

Regards,

Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.