Subject: Re: Ambler pretends to own .WEB again.

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:05:05 -0700

>You have no legal right to .WEB. You sued to get it. You did not get
>it.

The mantra continues - The Case Was Not About That.

Can we drop this?

--
Christopher Ambler, Personal Opinion Only
--
NOTICE: The user of this email address is a resident of the State of 
Washington. Washington law provides for up to $500 per incident in
the case of Unsolicited Commercial Email (also known as spam).
This individual WILL file a complaint.

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:27:56 -0400

> The mantra continues - The Case Was Not About That.

Well, that's not what the papers you filed with the court said. This
"mantra" of yours started a couple of days ago.

> Can we drop this?

No. We can not.

Every time you make this deliberately false statement in public, it
will be necessary for me to make sure people are not taken in. You
sued the IANA and IAHC, claiming you were owed .WEB. A judge in a
court in a venue you picked said "no".

Luckily, the public record contains every last word that was said in
court. There is no need for people to take your word against mine --
they can check what the case was about and what happened on their own.

I wish you were a gentleman, Mr. Ambler. Then we would be able to stop 
this. You would have accepted the court's decision, and moved on with
your life. Unfortunately, the era where most civilized people could be 
expected to behave honorably is long gone.

Again, if anyone doubts a single word I say, the record of the court
case in question is completely public. One needn't believe a single
word I say. It is all subject to public verification.

I *will* drop this for a day or two. I think everyone who cares to
read this has seen enough. However, the next time you bring this up,
I will dispute what you say once more, and the time after that, and
the time after that.

Perry

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 23:23:11 -0700

I think that Perry has, in this message, adequately proven
stalking-behaviour, as well as intent to continue such behaviour.

I suggest that y'all drop him in the same pit as Jeff Williams. I, for one,
have had quite enough of this ignoramus, as well as the court-transcript
chaff he keeps dumping here.

Chris, I suggest that you simply ignore him from now on. As for me, Perry
just made it into my filters. It's a lot easier on my blood-pressure that way.

>I will dispute what you say once more, and the time after that, and

___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________ 
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!

---

From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 06:47:24 -0700

>word I say. It is all subject to public verification.

Since you were a member, I've been trying to find the public record of the
iahc-discuss list. It appears we have many reasons to doubt you. The list
appears to have been deliberately censored. So much for your accountability
Perry. Where are the posts for December 1996 and January 1997? The FIRST
message in the archive is from Don Heath saying
(http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/00000.html) : 

Due to the large volume of submissions and comments we received, the 
IAHC will be releasing its final report on February 3, 1997 as 
opposed to the January 31, 1997 date published in the preliminary 
report.

We appreciate your understanding and patience in allowing us the 
additional weekend days to finish this phase of our work.

Sincerely, 
Donald M. Heath, for the IAHC

Where is the "large volume of submissions" and the previous months discussion
archived??? Where is the IAHC's accountability? Where is your accountability
Perry?

Best Regards,

Simon

--
###

---

From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:00:31 -0400

As of mid-1998 the authoritative IAHC archives were merged with the gTLD-MoU's
archive. 
Check out http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/date.html

Unfortunately, there is nothing at the original IAHC site that explains this, so
the charge of censorship comes up periodically. Remember, all of this becomes
history. One of the (dubious?) virtues of archives is that they allow us to
observe the sparring in the dot .web fight over and over again. 

Sorry for the cross posting.

Craig Simon

Simon Higgs wrote:
> 
> I've been trying to find the public record of the
 
-snipped

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:07:25 -0400

Simon Higgs writes:
> appears to have been deliberately censored.

Sure Simon. Whatever you say.

Perry

---

From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 06:26:44 -0700

At 08:00 AM 7/17/98 -0400, Craig Simon wrote:

That's as bogus of an excuse as I've ever heard. The original IAHC archive
is deliberately misleading, and incomplete. There is no explanation that I
can find for the deliberate removal of the early posts (other than Brian
Carpenter's recommendation at the last IAB plenary to censor thoughts that
the IAB do not agree with).

But, at least I've now found this post from Klatu Nemron of Zorgoth B:

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/03046.html

This message, at least, explains the disturbing condition of at least one
IAHC member.

And yes, Fred, this should give the IETF list a chuckle too.

;-) (that's for Hank)

Best Regards,

Simon

--
###

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:12:33 +0100

Simon and all,

> the IAB do not agree with).

  Any comments by Craig or Robert Shaw on these points should not be suprising
in light of their "Connection" with the that Bob has with the IAHC-discuss
archives and Craigs inaccurate assertions that he is interest in these discussions

and debates form a purely observation standpoint as he is supposedly writing
a thesis paper.  If you review his own pages you will see that this does not
ring true

  It is also instructive to note that the IAHC was "Commissioned" by the IANA
according to Dave Crocker and their shall we say "Shell Game" activities with
respect to the IAB, NSI, and the ISOC as to the "Control" over the Root
servers and IP address allocations.  The pgMedia case will prove this out
very clearly.  See, http://www.technologylaw.com/pgmedia-reply.html.

> This message, at least, explains the disturbing condition of at least one

  There seems to be a disturbing pattern that has been going on and on for some
time with these folks.

> Simon

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 13:22:23 -0700

>And yes, Fred, this should give the IETF list a chuckle too.

For the third day in a row, I am asking that this thread be taken off the
IETF list.

The continued disregard of the express desire of the community is forcing
us into a set of actions that we have never contemplated before. The IESG
has been forced to consider moderating the IETF list, whose open-ness is
something we have jealously guarded. Please do not force us into that.
Please, instead, act responsibly.

The list which states that it is for the discussion of domain name policy
is [email-masked]. Please continue this discussion, if you
must, there, but take it off the IETF list.

Fred Baker
IETF Chair

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:11:56 -0700

Fred,

I appreciate your concern with this, but I'm afraid that you'll have to
allow more time for results. I've noticed quite a bit of latency on this
list. Your request may have already been responded to, but we may not know
for a few days. There are many messages in-flight, as it were.