Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

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

> In all fairness, my recollection of the suit is that it was only after the
> judge issued a preliminary judgement against IOD that it was dropped.

This is correct as to the timing, but not as to the reasoning. The fact that
the TRO (not prelim. judgement, but the denial of the TRO) was not
granted didn't mean that the suit could have continued.

> I also seem to recall that the intent of the suit was to force IANA to put
> IOD's .web registry in the root--a goal that never succeded.

Incorrect. The goal was to prevent the gTLD-MoU from putting .web
into the root for someone else. When we were contacted and told that
the USG would be preventing the gTLD-MoU from achieving that
goal, we dropped our suit, as there was no reason to continue to
spend the money (and yes, the risk that we might lose and be hit
for costs). That's only good sense.

We've been over this many times in the past couple of years - it
still saddens me to see people insist things about it that aren't
true (either factually or as a consequence). Alas, all of those
opinions are worth exactly what you've paid for them. It will
be pointed out that the opposite is true, so I formally invite
everyone to ignore me as well - either way doesn't make much
difference to an obsolete case over 2 years old.

Who's going to Comdex?

Christopher