Re: Tired of Waiting

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

Once again, Perry shows that the judge did not believe
that IANA and IOD had entered into a contract. As I've
said time and again, the world is a different place, now.
IANA's dealings with the IAHC didn't come into play either,
so we broke even. The judge didn't think that a TRO to
prevent the signing of the MoU was in order. Fine, it was
signed, but never implemented. Again, we break even.

But the suit had other points that the judge did NOT rule
on, and it was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it
could be opened up all over again if need be. I suspect
there is no need, of course.

Perry, you delight in using the ruling as some kind of
flag to wrap yourself in.

But the bottom line is that the IAHC/CORE plan has
never been implemented, so the suit was moot. The
judge seemed to side with the IAHC, but what did it
get you? Nothing.

I was (and still am) willing to drop this, if you will.

--
Christopher Ambler, Personal Opinion Only
--
NOTICE: The user of this email address is a resident of the State of 
Washington. Washington law provides for up to $500 per incident in
the case of Unsolicited Commercial Email (also known as spam).
This individual WILL file a complaint.