Hi Kent, Your version of history differs greatly from my version. Rather than highlight your inaccuracies, again and again, over and over, I'll just wait for a definitive ruling in a court of law. [Anyone who's disappointed, can simply read the previous versions of that debate in one of the mailing list archives. Richard should be able to point the way.] BTW, IODesign's suit has nothing to do with IANA's delegation. It is simply a matter of CORE infringing on IODesign's common law trademark. Based on Ken Stubb's comments yesterday, it would appear that even he agrees with IODesign! Jay. At 03:09 PM 11/7/99 , Kent Crispin wrote: >On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:55:42PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote: >[...] > > > > > >Here is the full text of a private email from Jon Postel to me on > > >this topic -- normally I don't post private email, but under the > > >circumstances this is warranted: > > > > > > Hi Kent, > > > > I've always found your email from Jon > > suspicious at best. > > > > During the many years that IODesign has claimed > > that they have received permission from the IANA, > > neither Bill Manning (the man who accepted IODesign's > > check in front of witnesses), nor Jon Postel have > > ever publicly disputed their claim. > >Earth to Fenello: > >Jon Postel was a defendant in a lawsuit brought by IODesign, a >lawsuit where IODesign's claim's were formally and publically >disputed by him, as well as the other defendants. > >Further, Jon Postel signed the gTLD-MoU, a complete repudiation of >IODesign's claims. > >IODesign claims that Bill Manning, a person who did part-time work >for IANA, authorized an exclusive franchise to IODesign for a service >worth millions of dollars, in an informal meeting with less than half >a dozen people who happened to show up. IODesign has no signed >documents to this effect. > >IODesign's claims don't pass the "ha ha" test. > > > Yet you, one of the people most responsible for > > the failed IAHC debacle, somehow received this > > secret communique from Jon Postel, supposedly > > written in November of 1997. > >I have a number of private messages from Jon. > > > Yet, to the best of my knowledge, you never > > revealed this communique until *after* Jon had > > passed away, even though you had personally > > disputed IODesign's claim for as long as I can > > remember. > >Sure. In my opinion IODesign's claim is absolute garbage. In my >opinion they blew a lot of money on what I believe is a shakey >fly-by-night get rich scheme, and are happily throwing good money >after bad in legal expenses. > > > It is for these reason's that courts do not allow > > hearsay evidence, a concept that I'm sure the > > readers of this list are all aware. > >You misunderstand. I did not claim that Jon's letter is evidence >appropriate for a court. In fact I have no way myself of verifying >that it "really" came from him, any more than I can verify that your >email "really" came from you. > >But that is not the point. I presented that letter as a succinct >statement from Jon about his position on the matter, but there is >really no new information there -- Jon's position is public knowledge >to those who look. You live in a world of press releases, and you >appear only dimly aware that there are people who are known by their >deeds, not their words. > >Jon was one such. > > >-- >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be >[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain Respectfully, Jay Fenello, New Media Relations ------------------------------------ http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480 "We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are building it just outside the constitution's review." -- Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN
