You wrote:
> I saw the messages on the list planning this very thing. There was talk
> of
> indemnifying IANA/Postel to provide an incentive to encourage him to do
> just
> that on CORE's behalf.
>
Which list?
The indemnification proposed by CORE for IANA was the same indemnification
the DNSO is proposing to cover, i.e. the risk of lawsuits by people that
were not happy with the introduction of the 7 gTLDs foreseen by the MoU, and
not others that they may have wanted.
> You call it sillyness. I have to agree, it was.
>
At that time, I compared it to Schumacher ramming Villeneuve in Suzuka, few
months before. He may have thought it was a good idea, but it costed him the
world title (and the loss of supporters, which for Ferrari is worse than
losing the title).
That also may have been planned in advance by Schummy and Todt, as a last
resort, but I'm sure that the rest of the "Scuderia" was unaware of it.
> Buy deny there was no serious talk about doing so is even more silly.
>
For the record, I do not deny that there has been somewhere some serious
talk about it. Of course it was not decided by Jon Postel getting up one
morning on the wrong foot.
I can even guess a couple of names of people involved.
What I am claiming is that the large majority of CORE was not aware of it.
(Or, maybe, I was silly enough not to have realized what everybody else did)
And this is really the point: I reacted not to defend the "level of
integrity" (BobH's words) of the few who planned, but the "level of
integrity" of CORE as a whole, that didn't even know about it, let alone to
decide it.
OTOH, BobH, if you did realize it at the time of the Washington meeting, why
didn't you speak up then?
Regards
Roberto