[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN

The record speaks for itself -- I
stand by my prior, unedited comments.


At 09:06 PM 10/28/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>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
> > >knowledge.
> > >
> > >- 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
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain


Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
http://www.fenello.com  770-392-9480