|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: GTE to acquire Genuity
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: [email protected]
\:\ \ \/__/ /:/ \/__/ Pager: (800) SKY-PAGE, pin# 571-8494
\:\ \ /:/ / Web: http://www.colltech.com
\:\ \ \/__/
\:\__\
\/__/
|