Gordon,
you have the way of spinning the longest line of crappy conjectures into a
proposal of irresponsibility.
false: you should read what i wrote more carefully before you fly
publicly off t he handle.
I'm sure you could spin an equally long chain of
things into a reason why no one from the IAB or IETF ADs should have anything
at stake with the industry they help direct.
So IANA has no special powers?
For this particular case, there
are facts to prove your conjecture flawed.
wrong because you misread my conjecture.
I was consulting at Genuity when then needed to do their initial IP address
gathering for their new network. They sent in a proposal to Kim, and Kim told
them no. Rodney was very upset at the time, but there was never any
interference by the IANA. When Genuity provided better documentation and
cleaned up some things, then they got address blocks like anyone else.
May I quote what you over looked: Now I am confident that he has not used
his position to give special benefit to genuity.
and later in the same post: Rodney Joffe explained to me in very glowing
terms this summer why jon
was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine.
Further explanation - Rodney Joffe told me precisely the same story which
i published verbatim.....and more besides..... jon came out pure as the
driven snow
At least judge Jon by his actions, not by your inferred doubt. The evidence is
that when put in the exact situation you feared, the IANA acted by not acting.
Genuity was not harmed financially by this (I think even Rodney will now admit
that) so there is no damage to be fretted about. Certainly there will be a
tidy profit to Bechtel and the other founders of Genuity.
I never suggested genuity was harmed. I do state that one of the
senior members of the community who knows the laws of the fiduciary legal
responsibility of members of boards of directors far better than I
pointed out that he believed it possible that a genuity stock holder
who was aware of jons proper from the internet point of view, could have
taken legal action against jon for NOT making a decision that benefitted
genuity and using his powers to act for the fiduciary benefit of the
company of which he was a director and for which he had such a legal
responsibility.
now I am a r ussian history Phd....read trained as an academic....as is
jon.....and most academics aren't terribly aware of these nuances.....so I
can understand jon's accepting the directorship.
guess my bitch is why would the presumably legally savvy business staff
of genuity/bechtel have put jon however unwittingly into such a position?.
I have been told be those who are also my seniors, that Jon is and "icon"
and when one critcizes him one can expect all hell to break loose....looks
like my seniors were right.....but it also looks like I owe him no
apology.
and before you continue your flame I hope you will look more carefully at
what I am saying.