[ga-full] Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > Yes, the USG did create a process that bears their imprimatur.  They still
> have
> >  to approve the results, as a matter of fact.
> 
> The USG created a process for ICANN over the past couple of years. But
> we're talking about 1995 and 1996 here, when IANA was presumably in
> charge. You're saying that they were not in charge. If they were not in
> charge, then who was? Please show me the "authorized process" that
> was in place in 1995. I followed IANA. You're now telling me that IANA
> was not the "authorized process." I don't agree, but I'm willing to concede
> the point if you can document yours.
> 
> Christopher

Hi Chris,
	I dunno, just waffling here... AFAIK, IANA has never accepted what
you continuosly claim (true, they haven't put out PR notices saying "IOD is
lying!" either). All your claims constantly can be resumed as "well, IANA
said I'd get '.web' in the end". Although I think your
"sue-everyone-under-the-sun" policy is not the best, in this case wouldn't
you have a case for suing IANA for breach of contract? As all your case
hinges over this verbal contract you are so adamant you have with them, go
ahead, bring it out (after all, you've lost loads of money through all these
delays), and have it over and done with.
If you succeed, then hurrah! you'll have a strong foundation for your case.
If the courts rule that IANA doesn't/didn't "exist" for legal purposes, then
any contract with a non-entity is just as invalid. Then again they might
just rule that you DIDN'T have *ANY* type of contract with them (hmmm,
hasn't a judge already said that he couldn't see any contract between you
and IANA?).

Going further... Today we *DO* have a formal authority over the legacy roots
which is the USG. We have a formal organisation (ICANN) who apparently have
or will have responsibility for this root and will go forward (hopefully!)
in expanding the root. You get a formal contract with them and you're in
business.
IANA was a fancy name for a task that was informal. Alleging a formal
contract with something that exists rather informally is fun, but probably
isn't much use (as you have seen 4 years down the lane, though I'll agree
that the spanner you have thrown in the works is distracting).
None of your legal attempts have gone far, and even the claim TM has
recently had a bucket of cold water thrown over it. Up to now I had
sometimes said that in your position, and seeing the possible gains
(millions if ".web" were to be given to you), then the gamble of losing a
few thousand dollars compared to what you could win were certainly worth it.
What the hell if it were unfair to get a generic TLD like that. Chances are
low, but the proportional gains were tremendous. Right now however I see
those chances as non-existant and your continuing fight is damaging to your
reputation, your private life, and your economy (but it says one hell of a
lot for your bloody-mindedness! :-) ). Call it a day.

Yours, John Broomfield.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html