Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:05:29PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Dave, you can't have it both ways. Either IANA sanctioned activity
> is canon or it is not. Either what they did with the IAHC has the
> same position as their requesting NIC templates prior to entry or
> it doesn't. These facts are not in dispute.

Of course they are.  IANA didn't "request" NIC templates -- IANA
*accepted* NIC templates when people submitted them, and repeatedly gave
warnings to those submitters not to count on anything coming of those
submissions. 

Your statements about this "history" are a web of self-serving
distortions, mis-statements, inaccuracies, and unverifiable assertions,
all designed to support the fiction that IANA sanctioned your 
activities.  But it most emphatically did not.

Moreover, in the final analysis, your claims of Jon Postel's blessing 
have absolutely no significance.  CORE has a piece of paper with Jon's 
real signature on it, as official IANA representative.  Despite your 
glowering hints of what you can produce "when the time is right", there 
has never been a glimmer of any documentary evidence of any of your 
claims.

> THESE FACTS - let's
> leave other facts that ARE in dispute out of it.
> 
> So, I reiterate - we have, at most, 5 or so companies that created
> infrastructure based upon the actions of IANA. In these cases, 
> assurances were made that were subsequently broken.

As far as I am concerned, your credibility in these matters is absolute
zero. Here is a letter from Jon, on this topic:

>From postel@ISI.EDU  Sat Nov 22 10:01:53 1997                                                                        
>From: Jon Postel <postel@ISI.EDU>                                 
>Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:04:08 -0800 (PST)                                   
>To: kent@songbird.com                        
>Cc: postel@ISI.EDU, heath@isoc.org                         
>Subject: Re: .web                                                                                   
>  
>  
>> 3.) The IANA originaly sanctioned Chrsi Ambler in this endevor.  That
>>     is well documented.                    
>  
>Kent:                                          
>  
>I have no interest in debating this matter with Mr. Williams or anyone
>else, but as i am sure you know his statement quoted above is flat out                  
>false.                                                                     
>  
>There is some room in the review of the events to allow that Chris may         
>have misinterpreted some things that were said at one stage, however                             
>the full sequence of communications clearly shows that there was never     
>a scanction/permission/authority/direction given to Chris regarding         
>".web".  There was encouragement to be involved in the process of 
>developing the plan for new gTLDs.                                            
>
>As you know, Chris's company IODesign sued me and several others
>(personally, rather than suing USC (*)), over this ".web" matter.                                   
>However, after the judge denied some preliminary actions by IODesign
>(requests for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an injunction),
>IODesign decided not to persue the case.                               
>
>(*) USC did provide a strong legal team for our defense in this
>matter.                                        
>  
>--jon.                                                                

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain