And when that happens, Microsoft will buy Worldcomm. And then Microsoft will require AOL to use MSN's interface bundled with Worldcomm's connectivity or get no connectivity at all.
Shhhh. Don't give the Evil Empire any ideas.... Chris Cook Network Engineer __________________________________________________________________________ Net Asset Network Operations Center 1315 Van Ness Ave., Suite 103 Fresno CA 93721 209/225-0222
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Chris Cook, Net Asset LLC wrote:
And when that happens, Microsoft will buy Worldcomm. And then Microsoft will require AOL to use MSN's interface bundled with Worldcomm's connectivity or get no connectivity at all.
Shhhh. Don't give the Evil Empire any ideas....
perhaps I've been smoking too much crack, but back when MSN was getting started, Microsoft dumped a large amount of money in UUNET's lap. How much of this ended up going towards UUNET stock? And if they owned a chunk then, they'd own a chunk of Worldcomm now. But then, I may just be smoking too much crack.
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 mec@ummagumma.ops.usa.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Chris Cook, Net Asset LLC wrote:
And when that happens, Microsoft will buy Worldcomm. And then Microsoft will require AOL to use MSN's interface bundled with Worldcomm's connectivity or get no connectivity at all.
Shhhh. Don't give the Evil Empire any ideas....
perhaps I've been smoking too much crack, but back when MSN was getting started, Microsoft dumped a large amount of money in UUNET's lap. How much of this ended up going towards UUNET stock? And if they owned a chunk then, they'd own a chunk of Worldcomm now. But then, I may just be smoking too much crack.
Yep.. <URL:http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/7404.html>
- Josh Richards / jrichard@fix.net / Finger for PGP key - - Systems Administrator / FIX Net / http://www.fix.net -
Hmmm if my memory serves me right I believe MicroSoft has 3 of its directors on UUnets board, and that very well could be the end run on the network. The thought is not comforting.... Henry R. Linneweh Josh Richards wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 mec@ummagumma.ops.usa.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Chris Cook, Net Asset LLC wrote:
And when that happens, Microsoft will buy Worldcomm. And then Microsoft will require AOL to use MSN's interface bundled with Worldcomm's connectivity or get no connectivity at all.
Shhhh. Don't give the Evil Empire any ideas....
perhaps I've been smoking too much crack, but back when MSN was getting started, Microsoft dumped a large amount of money in UUNET's lap. How much of this ended up going towards UUNET stock? And if they owned a chunk then, they'd own a chunk of Worldcomm now. But then, I may just be smoking too much crack.
Yep..
<URL:http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/7404.html>
- Josh Richards / jrichard@fix.net / Finger for PGP key - - Systems Administrator / FIX Net / http://www.fix.net -
-- ¢4i1å
last time i looked Jon postel was still on genuity's board. It is my understanding that this gives him a LEGAL responsibility to act in the best financial interests of genuity. Seems to me this creates a conflict of interest given what with his powers as IANA he could do to benefit genuity with IP allocations etc. now I am confident that he has not used his position to give special benefit to genuity. but I am also told that he could be regarded as culpable for not having helped them out when it could be argued he had the power to do so. This is a distinction that I was slow to grasp and one that jon with a research rather than a business background might also be slow to grasp. Rodney Joffe explained to me in very glowing terms this summer why jon was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. Point is Jon could have had the same impact as a special advisor to the board. one wonders why genuity bechtel attornies that could be expected to be aware of these issues went with the board choice anyway. does jons board position disappear when genuity is fully acquired? i would hope so. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com New Special Report: Internet Governance at the Crossroads ($175) http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml ************************************************************************ On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Hmmm if my memory serves me right I believe MicroSoft has 3 of its directors on UUnets board, and that very well could be the end run on the network. The thought is not comforting....
Henry R. Linneweh
Josh Richards wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 mec@ummagumma.ops.usa.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Chris Cook, Net Asset LLC wrote:
And when that happens, Microsoft will buy Worldcomm. And then Microsoft will require AOL to use MSN's interface bundled with Worldcomm's connectivity or get no connectivity at all.
Shhhh. Don't give the Evil Empire any ideas....
perhaps I've been smoking too much crack, but back when MSN was getting started, Microsoft dumped a large amount of money in UUNET's lap. How much of this ended up going towards UUNET stock? And if they owned a chunk then, they'd own a chunk of Worldcomm now. But then, I may just be smoking too much crack.
Yep..
<URL:http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/7404.html>
- Josh Richards / jrichard@fix.net / Finger for PGP key - - Systems Administrator / FIX Net / http://www.fix.net -
-- ��4i1�
Gordon, you have the way of spinning the longest line of crappy conjectures into a proposal of irresponsibility. 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. For this particular case, there are facts to prove your conjecture flawed. 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. 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 believe you owe Jon a personal apology for this. jerry
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote:
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.
I believe you owe Jon a personal apology for this.
jerry
====================== read my original post more carefully this time. Last time i looked Jon postel was still on genuity's board. It is my understanding that this gives him a LEGAL responsibility to act in the best financial interests of genuity. Seems to me this creates a conflict of interest given what with his powers as IANA he could do to benefit genuity with IP allocations etc. Now I am confident that he has not used his position to give special benefit to genuity. but I am also told that he could be regarded as culpable for not having helped them out when it could be argued he had the power to do so. This is a distinction that I was slow to grasp and one that jon with a research rather than a business background might also be slow to grasp. Rodney Joffe explained to me in very glowing terms this summer why jon was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. Point is Jon could have had the same impact as a special advisor to the board. one wonders why genuity bechtel attornies that could be expected to be aware of these issues went with the board choice anyway. does jons board position disappear when genuity is fully acquired? i would hope so.
Folks, Personally, Id like to see a more reasonable discussion. With all the colourful jargons, would you guys mind taking this offline? Thanks! -- Amanul Gordon Cook said:
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote:
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.
I believe you owe Jon a personal apology for this.
jerry
====================== read my original post more carefully this time.
Last time i looked Jon postel was still on genuity's board. It is my understanding that this gives him a LEGAL responsibility to act in the best financial interests of genuity. Seems to me this creates a conflict of interest given what with his powers as IANA he could do to benefit genuity with IP allocations etc. Now I am confident that he has not used his position to give special benefit to genuity. but I am also told that he could be regarded as culpable for not having helped them out when it could be argued he had the power to do so. This is a distinction that I was slow to grasp and one that jon with a research rather than a business background might also be slow to grasp.
Rodney Joffe explained to me in very glowing terms this summer why jon was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. Point is Jon could have had the same impact as a special advisor to the board. one wonders why genuity bechtel attornies that could be expected to be aware of these issues went with the board choice anyway.
does jons board position disappear when genuity is fully acquired? i would hope so.
Cheers . . . _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ ___ /\ \ /\ \ /::\ \ \:\ \ Amanul Haque, Senior Consultant /:/\:\ \ \:\ \ Collective Technologies / PSA /:/ \:\ \ /::\ \ 9050 Capital of Tx Hwy N., Austin, TX /:/__/ \/\ \ /:/\:\__\ Email: ahaque@colltech.com \:\ \ \/__/ /:/ \/__/ Pager: (800) SKY-PAGE, pin# 571-8494 \:\ \ /:/ / Web: http://www.colltech.com \:\ \ \/__/ \:\__\ \/__/
UUNet runs MSN's network. I'm sure this is not a cheap operation. That money more than likely went into network implementation costs, as building a private nationwide dialup network can be quite costly. typical nanog bitter-batter: making assumptions based upon half truths. On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 mec@ummagumma.ops.usa.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Chris Cook, Net Asset LLC wrote:
And when that happens, Microsoft will buy Worldcomm. And then Microsoft will require AOL to use MSN's interface bundled with Worldcomm's connectivity or get no connectivity at all.
Shhhh. Don't give the Evil Empire any ideas....
perhaps I've been smoking too much crack, but back when MSN was getting started, Microsoft dumped a large amount of money in UUNET's lap. How much of this ended up going towards UUNET stock? And if they owned a chunk then, they'd own a chunk of Worldcomm now. But then, I may just be smoking too much crack.
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Aaron France wrote:
UUNet runs MSN's network. I'm sure this is not a cheap operation. That money more than likely went into network implementation costs, as building a private nationwide dialup network can be quite costly.
typical nanog bitter-batter: making assumptions based upon half truths.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/7404.html yeah, cut out the bitter-batter ;)
participants (8)
-
Aaron France -
Amanul Haque -
ccook＠netasset.com -
Gordon Cook -
Henry Linneweh -
Jerry Scharf -
Josh Richards -
mec＠ummagumma.ops.usa.net