[ga-full] Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

> But IANA is not the keeper of the root zone, Simon.  The USG is.  They
> specifically delegated to IANA the ability to manage the ccTLD
delegations, but
> new gTLDs were specifically outside of their scope.

How many times do you have to be told that YOU ARE WRONG?

NSF specifically directed TLD applications to IANA when NSI asked them what
to do. NSF then told IANA to take them but not to make changes. IANA then
started the IAHC fiasco and NSF divested themselves of the headache.

> I've said this over and over again to you, and you still can't provide any
> evidence that shows that the USG gave IANA the authority to delegate new
gTLDs
> without its prior approval.

Correct, for what good it does. They said, "take the info, work on the
process,
but don't move without us." So they did all of the above. I'm only concerned
with
the "take the info" part. The rest is history.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html