> No, it doesn't. You still demand to own the registry, and run it
> for a profit. It is the registry that is the monopoly.
I demand no such thing. Suggest a more workable model.
> > > But Chris, I do indeed know something of your morals...
> >
> > Really? Do tell. Seriously, let's hear it.
>
> OK. Just checked. As of this date, July 9, 1999, on your website
> (http://webtld.com/) you still have the following statement:
>
> Image Online Design is, and has been prepared for over three years
> to have its .web registry added to the Internet's root servers,
> since being given permission by the Internet Assigned Numbering
> Authority (IANA) to bring the .web registry online in 1996. IANA
> has never contested this permission.
>
> This statement was on that web page some months ago, and questioned
> on public mailing lists. You defended it. I sent an email to IANA
> asking directly if your .web registry was running with IANAs
> permission or approval. I received a direct reply, which I forwarded
> to the public email list, that stated unequivocally "No". Therefore,
> it is a matter of public record that IANA has "contested this
> permission". Yet you continue to make this false claim.
Please tell me which IANA representative said this. Please get Bill
Manning to state, under oath, that he did not give permission for
IOD to go live, after receiving instruction from Jon Postel. Until
you can do this (you cannot), I maintain that the statement is true.
Regardless, that's a statement of Image Online Design, not me. You said
that you knew *my* morals.
> Furthermore, the claim was false to begin with, since IANA was one of
> the defendants in your lawsuit, and vigorously denied your claims.
This is also not true. Bill Manning, the individual who gave the
permission, on behalf of Jon Postel, has NEVER denied this.
Regardless of what Jon may or may not have told you in public,
he had never gone on record as denying what happened in
Marine Del Rey on 31 July, 1996.
> I personally consider making false claims such as yours highly
> questionable from an ethical standpoint. Hence my statement that I
> do have some exposure to your morals.
Again, these aren't my morals. IOD's position has nothing to do with
my morals. I'm not even the majority shareholder in the company.
An apology is, again, in order, for your libelous statements.
Christopher
