[ga-full] RE: Not exactly. RE: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

>No, its not Chris.  I know you desperate what it to be so.  But its not.
If
>IANA had the authority we wouldn't be here right now, Chris, discussing
this.
>Bottom line.  If IANA had the authority, NSF would not have told NSI to not
add
>any new gTLDs if requested to do so by IANA.

You are being obtuse to the point of annoyance. I showed that IANA gave the
authority up on 4 April, 1997. Hence, your "bottom line" is irrelevant: it
happened after the fact.

>Even if I were to give you that IANA HAD the authority at one point (which
I
>don't believe by any stretch), NSF clearly took that authority away.  Since
the
>NSF was not consulted and was not a party to whatever IANA was doing, the
USG
>who does hold the authority is not under any obligation to IOD or any one
else
>on this subject.

Now here you are closer. You do not believe that IANA had the authority.
That's
your personal belief, which I suspect you're entitled to. I maintain that
you're
wrong, which, I suspect, I'm entitled to. My contention is that the
authority
was clear at the time, and no consultation was necessary. I believe that the
legal documents I've cited back that up. You do not feel that they do.

In another message I was preparing, I was going to say:

] >No clear authority exists, Chris.  Bottom line.  Sexton's points are good
] >insights into this.   Perhaps Jon just finally realized he wouldn't be
able to
] >assert the authority he thought IANA should have had, and stopped
fighting it.
]
] The bloody director of the NSF division in charge says that IANA has
] the authority, and you don't BELIEVE him? What part of his deposition
] did you not understand?!

I think this underscores my point as well, and you do not agree.

As it turns out, since this is a case of two opinions, there's no way to
decide this. We could hold a vote, but I think we'd get a sum total of 4 or
5
ballots cast.

I propose a truce on the issue, as we've obviously come to difference of
opinion on the interpretation of the documents as presented. Fair enough?

Finally, on the issue of our current lawsuit, let me not send the
argumentative response I was planning, and instead just state calmly
that IOD claims IANA authority as the reason the registry was taken online,
and
perhaps also as the reason fees were charged, but it has nothing to do with
the mark itself. Your claims that this issue is pivotal to the current
lawsuit
against CORE is not the case - it has nothing to do with it. It's a simple
case of infringement, and the source of authority has no bearing on the
mark itself. I invite you to read the complaint and other public documents
in the case. If you do not have them, let me know, and I'll see about
getting them to you as a personal favour. But I would also ask that you
not make sweeping statements about the basis for the case unless you're
sure that you're right - in this case, you're not.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

--
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