[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:05:06 -0400
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, 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: <19991028180653.D29332@songbird.com>
- References: <email@example.com><19991028201255359.AAA91@gromit.edventure.com@karachinsky><199910282243.PAA19947@darwin.ptvy.ca.us><firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
>email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
New Media Relations