How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through)

[Jim Fleming]

On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:26 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote:
@ >
@ > On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote:
@ > @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates,
@ > @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications,
@ > @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees...
@ > @
@ > @   I dont think you are being accurate here Jim.
@ > @
@ > @ --
@ > @ --bill
@ > @
@ > @
@ >
@ > Can you be more specific...?
@
@       I refer you to the mailing list archives.
@

@@@@@@@@   http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html


Re: Notes (fwd)

John Frangie (john at toyota-slo.com)
Fri, 03 Jan 1997 13:21:12 -0800

Mr Dillon, please don't take this wrong. I think the
technical contribution you can add to this process is very valuable.
Since day one, I have considered you, Rick Wesson, Perry Metzger, Simon
Higgs along with Chris Ambler and a few others as the ones I draw most
of my knowledge from. Thank you all for your input. Now I am unclear if
you if you are planning on running a Registry. If you are, that might
explain your need to try and make Chris look silly by constantly
disreguarding the facts as they happened. IMO you will fail at a
registry or any other endeavor you attempt if you try and convince
anyone, anything that is not based on truth. Now the truth is you were
not at this meeting.

Michael Dillon wrote:
 >
 > On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Christopher Ambler wrote:
 >
 > > Since the Postel draft was
 > > not yet RFC (according to their plans), I asked permission to go
online now,
 > > as long as I disclaimed that it would take a while longer to get
the Postel
 > > draft to RFC status.
 >
 > You asked permission? Do you think Bill is God? In English the words
used
 > to ask for permission are also used to ask if something is
technically
 > possible. Lots of room for misunderstanding there. And since Bill had
no
 > authority to give you permission to do this anyway, it is a moot
point.

            Michael, if I may, your crystal ball seems to be fooling
you.  A conversation with Bill Manning on this subject might stop this
noise you are posting.

 > > Both myself
 > > and Mr. Frangie (a shareholder and partner in Image Online Design)
were very
 > > clear with Bill.
 >
 > I see. So when you placed a check in a sealed enveloppe and slipped
the
 > enveloppe into a file folder with some other paper, this was being
 > "very clear"?

            If you were at the meeting, you would have seen Bill
Manning, when asked if we could pay the $1000 to IANA, stand up, excuse
himself from the room and come back with an envelope. He gave us the
envelope and we put the check in it. He told us to seal the envelope and
he would place it in file along with our application.   (Note)  Bill
said nothing about slipping the envelope anywhere as he appears to have
too much integrity for anything like that. It was always our intention,
in giving Bill Manning the check, to have this complete our application
process according to the Postel draft which would become a RFC around
October 1, 1996. And so accepted.

 > > What is important is the final document that the IAHC will present
to us on
 > > the 31st, and what happens thereafter.
 >
 > As I read the draft of this document, there is very little hope that
any
 > company will find a golden egg in the outcome of the IAHC. In other
words,
 > if you have a business plan that relies on becoming a domain name
 > registrar and making lots of money, you had better change those plans
now.
 > It is quite clear that the IAHC is not going to create a cash cow for
 > anyone.
 >
 > Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP
Consulting
 > Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax:
+1-604-546-3049
 > http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail:
michael at memra.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL

e-mail:
JimFleming at unety.net
JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)