Subject: Tired of Waiting

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:54:29 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <[email-masked]>
<snip>
>
>After many years, and goal-posts that moved so much we thought they were
>soccer-forwards, we're a little tired of waiting. 

I agree, I am not sure what is taking Jon Postel
and the ITAG so long. What is the point of "pacing"
all this to September 30, 1998 ?

Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 01:32:25 -0700

>all this to September 30, 1998 ?

Jim,
It isn't the 30Sept98 thing. That's only when the new org gets to looking
at it. We've waited for the GP, it was supposed to do it's thing, then we
waited for the WP, and it was supposed to do this thing, now we have to
wait for the New Entity? That was only the *last* two years. 

Originally, and the fubar that IOD stepped into, IANA even had a TLD
registry set up and running. Chris even officially used the published
process. >poof< Suddenly there was no process and the check was returned.
Then the scum-bags at CORE decided that the WEB name was so neat that they
wanted it, since IOD obviously couldn't use it. Does IANA help defend IOD?
They do not. This is why no one gets my new TLD name until it goes
operational, sometime next year.

Excuse me if I sound a little skeptical that this will even come to pass
unless pressure is brought to bear. The credibility of the process, Jon
Postal, ISI, IANA, ISOC, IAHC, and all the rest of the GOB.NET mud-ducks is
a stretched little thin by now. As far as we're concerned ITAG is nothing
more than yet another delaying tactic. 

BTW, during the course of this, OPEN-RSC members have shot down every
technical argument til there are none left. Even the USG WP admitted that
there is no technical reason why the root-servers can not be opened now.
Enough with the FUD, the stalling, and the lame excuses. The first order of
business is to OPEN THE ROOTS!

GOB = "Good ol' Boy" and GOB.NET is the Good Ol' Boy Network.

___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________ 
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:47:43 +0100

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> As far as we're concerned ITAG is nothing
Hello? The ITAG is an advisory group, giving advice to IANA when IANA
asks for it.

Advisory. Not executive. We have no way of inserting delay. Actually
a lot of our advice has been along the lines of "hurry up."

  Brian Carpenter (member of ITAG)

---

From: Dave Farber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 09:11:56 -0500

As another ITAG member I want to second Brians comment. ITAG is an ADVISORY group helping Postel in his planning for the IANA  organization. It is Advisory and does not originate actions -- it suggests. Advisory groups can be paid attention to or ignored, Jon has tended to pay attention. We have advised a hurry up approach and that seems to be happening.

Please don't attribute a Exec function to the ITAG -- it has NONE. and further all the ITAG members have committed themselves to not being Board Members, principles etc in the new IANA so we are as non self benefiting as we can be..

We are trying to help Jon deal with a very difficult problem and through this small action maybe help the net .

To quote froom the New York Times article:

''If we blow it, the result will be governance by Governments with all the negatives that holds for the future evolution of the net,'' Professor Farber recently wrote to his E-mail constituents. ''What do we do. We could act grown up!! We could coordinate the meetings and make it appear like we are organized. I wonder if the net establishment is indeed willing to be grown up, or will they fight till there is nothing left.''

His recent missive was a cry from the heart. ''This is a defining moment,'' Professor Farber said in an interview. ''If we can't pull it together on something like this, governments are going to get together and decide this is too important to their economic health to leave in the hands of chaos. They'll start writing treaties, and we'll end up with a very slow mechanism.''

Dave

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:37:36 +0800

Roeland,

It is difficult to get facts correct.  But it really is worth trying...

>process. >poof< Suddenly there was no process and the check was returned.

Poof.  Let's ignore the evaluation of IOD's claim made by a judge. It was a
very strong evaluation, but let's ignore it.

>Then the scum-bags at CORE decided that the WEB name was so neat that they

Poof.  It was the scumbags on the IAHC, not CORE, who chose the names.
None of the scumbags on the IAHC are part of CORE and none are trying to be
registrars, so none of are trying to make money from TLDs, but let's ignore
that fact.

Poof.  I've repeatedly explained the process that produced those names and
IOD wasn't relevant to it, but let's ignore that fact.

>more than yet another delaying tactic. 

Is credibility affected by failure to get basic facts correct?

Repeatedly?

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                         USA:                 +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                                   675 Spruce Drive
                                                  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
fax: +1 408 273 6464                 Malaysia:            +60 19 329 9445
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                     Post Office Box 296, UPM
<mailto:[email-masked]>              Serdang, Selangor 43400 MY

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 08:05:57 +0100

Dave and all,

> It is difficult to get facts correct.  But it really is worth trying...

  An you have rarely gotten them correct Dave...  But yes, lets do try...

> very strong evaluation, but let's ignore it.

  It was first of all not a very strong evaluation at all.  In fact it wasn't
even relevant
to the case.  But lets ignore the FACT!  And yes, dave I am sure you do want
to ignore it.  As this has been pointed out time and time again.

> registrars, so none of are trying to make money from TLDs, but let's ignore

  Lets also remember that the IAHC was acting purposefully to present a
challenge
to Chris and IOD and stated so many many times.  (See IAHC-Discuss archives
for details).  Chris's mistake was the venue in which he choose to fight the
IAHC.  In addition, lets also state the FACT that the IAHC made the choices
for their 7gTLD's against the current "Rough Consensus" which Dave is always
eluding to.  .Firm, indeed!  That is a laugh!

> IOD wasn't relevant to it, but let's ignore that fact.

  This is indeed a FACT Dave.  But it is one that does not and id not bode
well for the IAHC.  The IAHC used a "Closed" process to select the
7 gTLD's that they selected.  And you statement proves that.

> Is credibility affected by failure to get basic facts correct?

  Yes it sure should be.  And yours is very much lacking in this instance.

> Repeatedly?

  Yes Dave, you do get the FACTS incorrect Repeatedly.

> d/

 regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 08:04:34 -0700

Dave, 

Sometimes I feel you need to be drop-kicked. Chris was there, you were not,
and I told the story as Chris Ambler told it repeatedly in OPEN-RSC. Chris
is credible AFAICT, even though he works for the "evil empire" now <grin>.

>very strong evaluation, but let's ignore it.

All reports I have indicate that the decision was NOT definitive. But,
neither one of us are lawyers and we're not qualified. 

>IOD wasn't relevant to it, but let's ignore that fact.

Are you saying that IAHC and CORE have NOTHING to do with each other? That
they are completely unrelated? <gasp!> That means that you, personally, had
every bit to do with it, via your IAHC involvement? Okay, the IAHC were the
scum-bags. You just called yourself a scum-bag, do you realize that?

>Is credibility affected by failure to get basic facts correct?

I'll ignore the ad hominem, as per vint cerf's request.

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:43:46 -0400

> Sometimes I feel you need to be drop-kicked. Chris was there, you were not,

Actually, Dave and I were there. Both Dave and I were on the IAHC. You
were not.  We were sued by Ambler. You were not. When I say "we", I
mean the members of the IAHC personally, including me. Luckily,
although the courts can sometimes be fooled a bit, it is hard to pull
off something completely absurd.

By the way, in addition to being ignorant, you're rude. Telling people
that they need to be "drop-kicked" has no place in civilized
discourse. Not, of course, that any of this is civilized. It stopped
being civilized long ago.

> and I told the story as Chris Ambler told it repeatedly in OPEN-RSC.

I'm sure that is the story Chris told. Chris tells many stories. Here
is what the judge said after Chris sued us. 

                    THE COURT:  Anything further?  All right.  I'm prepared
to rule.
          One, I find that the Plaintiff, Image Online, has not
met its burden of proof to establish a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing on the merits of Image Online's claims at the time of
trial.  Those claims are really -- there are three different
claims or categories of claims.  One is the breach of contract
theory.
          There's insufficient evidence presented to support that
there was an enforceable agreement that was entered into between
Plaintiff and the Defendants.
          What's most interesting about the breach of con-

tract/estoppel claim is that the claim made is that there was a
contract entered into, or that the Defendant should be estopped
from denying that a contract was entered into with an entity that
the Plaintiff claims has no authority to act.  And in drawing that
conclusion, I don't mean to oversimplify and sound cute about the
inconsistency, but there's a real internal inconsistency in the
breach of contract position and again, the failure to establish
the elements of a contract.
          The second category of claims really has to do with the
unfair competition.  There we have the claim of Image Online that
they have a proprietary and protectable interest in dot web.
          I find the evidence insufficient to support either
factually, or as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff has estab-

lished that it has protectable proprietary interest in the term --
or the word -- term "dot web," considering the nature of the
interweb and the usage of the term, vis a vis, the interweb -- the
Internet.
          The third category has to do with the anti-competition,
the anti-trust theories.  Here, I find that the evidence provided
by the Defendants supports the Defendant's claim that the proposed
memorandum of understanding -- I don't know if it's a fait accom-

pli at this point.  I realize the meaning is taking place now, or
may be concluded, but at least for my purposes is a proposed
memorandum of understanding.  As I understand the memorandum of
understanding, the memorandum is promotive of competition.  And I
would categorize it as pro competition.  It's purpose is certainly
-- does not appear to be to stifle competition.  And even assuming
that the elements of the combination have been established, at
least for the purposes of the temporary restraining order applica-

tion, any appropriate application of the anti-trust rule of reason
considering, as applied to the Internet, suggests to me that
there's certainly justification for the combination acting as it
is.  And in particular, it's very difficult for me to ignore the
evidence before me that those that are involved, at least these
Defendants, have no proprietary or profit motive in their under-

takings, whereas the Plaintiff has.
          Furthermore, I find that the evidence is just not suffi-

cient to support the claim of the Plaintiff, that either any of
these Defendants, whether it be the IANA or the Ad Hoc Committee,
or the Internet Society are acting in an anti-competitive manner.
          There again, the anomaly we have here is that if the
Plaintiff had its way, it would be willing to enter into an agree-

ment with a combination that it believes is acting to restrain
trade.
          I further find that if the Plaintiff does have legal
rights against any of these Defendants, that their remedy, if any,
is -- can be compensated in monetary damages.
          There's also been a failure on the Plaintiff to estab-

lish irreparable harm justifying the imposition of injunctive
relief.  Even assuming if I'm -- that my analysis is incorrect
that the Plaintiff does not have an adequate legal remedy, that's
to say monetary damages, what I have done is -- what I'm obligated
to do, and that is to weigh the equities and consider the harm to
the Plaintiff if injunctive relief is not granted versus the harm
to the Defendants, and each and all of them, if injunctive relief
is granted.  And when I refer to Defendants, "and each and all of
them," I'm referring, even though the Internet itself -- I don't
know how you could make the Internet itself a Defendant, but I --
what I've considered in terms of the damage to the Defendants, by
extension, is the damage to the Internet system.  And I've weighed
the respective harms if I don't grant injunctive relief as the
Plaintiff requested, and the harm if I do.
          And the disruption to the Internet -- to the -- and the
potential destabilization and disruption to the Internet so far
outweighs the potential harm that there is harm to the Plaintiff,
that frankly, I don't even think it's a close call when I weigh
the equities and find the equities favor not granting injunctive
relief.
          And I must tell you, notwithstanding, Mr. Walter, your
argument in connection with the extent of the interstate commerce
clause and the ability of the Cartwright Act, to act as a long arm
of California law and extend overseas, I do have, as I understand,
the -- and it's not that I came upon this myself, it's clearly in
one of the briefs, the reference to the -- to what appears to be
congressional policy, although not the force of law, but that
congress prefers that the Internet not be fettered with the --
with governmental regulation, either by the federal government or
the state government.
          I do have a great deal of concern about a California
trial court involving itself when considered with all the other --
the global implications, the fact that -- of the Internet, the
fact that there is no, per se, regulatory body, I concern myself
when I gave consideration to the matter of potential disruption of
the Internet and destabilization of the Internet to the question
of whether or not there ought to be enforcement of a state law in
this case, 17200 of the Business and Professions Code or, for that
matter, the Cartwright Act, to the activities of the Internet.  It
certainly caused me to hesitate as to the appropriateness, in view
of what appears to be clear cut congressional policy.
          So, for all of those reasons, the temporary restraining
order is denied.  And for the reasons that I've indicated earlier,
I don't feel it's appropriate to set this matter for an order to
show cause re preliminary injunction.  That should take care of
it.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 05:09:59 +0800

>is credible AFAICT, even though he works for the "evil empire" now <grin>.

Roeland, one of the reason that we have judges is that people's perceptions
often differ.  

Please note that your drop-kicking continues not to not respond to any of
the factual points I raised.

d/

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:34:58 -0700

>the factual points I raised.

That is because this digression of your, which you've escalated by bringing
in Perry, IS NOT ABOUT THE COURT CASE! It's about the fact, seemingly
over-looked, and which you and IAHC seem to want to distract folks from,
that IANA HAD a process for registering TLDs, and the first time someone
tries to use it there is a policy change disallowing new TLD registrations.
Now how do you relate this to the IAHC? All I said was that IAHC/CORE
decided, after the fact, that WEB is "too cool" and took it for themselves.
That does NOT change the fact that the goal-posts WERE MOVED!

I don't appreciate your trying to de-rail this, IMHO, very important point
with your irrelevent FUD about the court case and whether or not IOD had a
contract with IANA or not. That doesn't change the point one iota! If
anything, the fact that IOD did NOT get a contract with IANA indicates
something seriously wrong at the time. I ain't gonna let your chaff
distract from this point again.

Sometimes I like you a lot, and other times I want to drop-kick you. You're
a friustrating man. I'm sure you think the same of me. For those unfamiliar
with the past six months, I've defended Dave as much as we've argued. Don't
let the appearance of flames fool you. Dave, I'll have you remember that too.
___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________ 
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!