RE: GTE to acquire Genuity

[Rodney Joffe <rjoffe () genuity net>]

Gordon,

I have to admit that you're right. You really do have all the answers,
and you really do know it all.

I guess the fact that there are only two shareholders in Genuity, me and
Bechtel, both of whom know exactly what Jon could and couldn't do, and
who accepted his conditions when he joined the board, is unimportant.
And the fact that Jon knew this, and understood that his fiduciary
responsibility in this area was subject *only* to the shareholders, both
of whom assured him in terms that he was prepared to accept that they
would *not* expect him to or ask him to _abuse_ his position  of trust
outside of Genuity to assist Genuity unfairly, is irrelevant.

Gordon, I have never been able to quite fathom out why you chose this
industry to attempt to make a living, and not the same industry as the
National Enquirer. I think you've missed your calling. I only hope your
clients realise the true value of your reporting. 

So that others are privy to the same information that I gave you, let me
be specific ( and remember, I don't owe ANYONE an explanation, but I
want to undo the damage that your buffoonery has caused);

Bechtel never really had to make a choice about whether Jon joined the
board or an advisory board. I nominated him to the board as one of *my*
representatives. They didn't know Jon from a hitchiker before this. I
wanted someone clueful to help me guide Genuity along a *good* path, and
away from the dark side (obviously I passed on asking you). I think I
can proudly say that Genuity has been an exemplary internet citizen (I,
of course, may not have been). 

So when you attempt to to wind people up with your paranoia, you do
someone who has done a lot of good for the Internet over *many* years a
grave injustice. Fortunately I care more about what honest, good people
like Jerry Scharf says, than I do about what you say. If I didn't, I'd
probably spend some real energy telling you what I really think.

Does anyone know if Paul's RBL works on a single netaxs address?

Rodney Joffe
Chief Technology Officer
Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company
http://www.genuity.net



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook () netaxs com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 11:38 PM
> To:   Jerry Scharf
> Cc:   nanog () merit edu
> Subject:      Re: GTE to acquire Genuity 
>
>
>
>
> 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.