[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN
- From: Kent Crispin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:06:53 -0700
- Cc: Esther Dyson <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>; from Jay Fenello on Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 08:44:25PM -0400
- Mail-Followup-To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET,email@example.com
- References: <19991028201255359.AAA91@gromit.edventure.com@karachinsky> <199910282243.PAA19947@darwin.ptvy.ca.us> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 08:44:25PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 06:43 PM 10/28/99 , Mike Roberts wrote:
> >Just for the record, the assertions contained in the following
> >email with regard to statements I am alleged to have made are
> >completely without factual substance and do not represent my
> >views or the views of any ICANN person to the best of my
> >- Mike Roberts
> Here's is what started it all:
> >Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:48:58 -0400
> >To: [a reporter]
> >From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
> >Here's where Mike Roberts informs everyone
> >that he's decided that prior claims to TLDs
> >are not valid, are not going to be considered,
> >even though this is in direct contradiction to
> >the White Paper's approach of a bottom-up
> >consensus process to answer this question.
Mike Roberts quote below does not say what you say above, and your
claim that it does takes the prize for the most creative deliberate
misreading I have seen in a long time.
> >>(Mr. Mike Roberts):
> >>"whatever we do about new top-level domains, one of the clear
> >>antecedent requirements of that is that we don't make what
> >>appears to be a monopoly profit grant. Now there are a lot
> >>of mechanisms for dealing with that and we are going to hear
> >>a lot of input on that, but I just wanted to sort of get that
> >>message out there because we are no longer if we ever were,
> >>we are no longer in an Oklahoma land rush approach to the
> >>creation of new TLDs. "
Let's see. You have stated that Iperdome suspended operations
because of Mr Robert's above statement.
That is, the statement "one of the clear antecedent requirements ...
is that we don't make what appears to be a monopoly profit grant" was
sufficient to, for practical purposes, cause you to close down
That is, you agree that delegating the .PER TLD to Iperdome as you
would like would be a "a monopoly profit grant".
Thank you for clarifying that. This is the point that many of us
have been making for a couple of years now.
We can further deduce that you believe that your business could not
survive without a "monopoly profit grant."
That is, that your business is not competitive.
Thanks for finally admitting that, as well.
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain