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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

William and all assembly members,

  I believe that there was a memorandum from the NSF or an official of the
NSF to be more precise that was posted in it's entirety on the IAHC list
at one point.  I know I have one from Jon Postel in my archives, as well
as a fax copy.  Hence, though I dislike disagreeing with Richard, I think
he is mistaken on this fine point.

  As to weather E-Mails are official documents, the supreme court have
excepted them as evidence as official documents in many many cases the least
of which is not the Microsoft case with respect to Bill Gates E-Mails.  Given
this well documented fact, I am again quite clearly stating that WXW has again
misstated what is legally considered "Official DOcuments" and what is not.  Nothing

new here, as we all here know as WXW has made suck inane statements of this
nature in the past on so many occasions that I couldn't began to estimate
the number...

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> > William, you want proof from an eye witness? Are you saying that Chris is
> > either lieing or doesn't remember? What level of proof do you want?
> >
> > I remember the same things as Chris and Simon, from a different perspctive.
> > I know for fact that NSF handed the whole mess over to IANA, just like Chris
> > said. Although, the only one that might still have written proof is Simon.
>
> Where are the documents, Roeland?   I'll settle for references to real official
> documents.  That's really not too much to ask, is it?
>
> > I think that you can find some of the info in the ORSC archives. However, I
> > think that you are taking the challenge for proof to absurd heights. This is
>
> The ORSC archives contain the ORSC's take on the issue, which is far from the
> actual factual accounting of what happened, and the real, not presumed,
> authority behind it.
>
> Mailing lists are not documents that prove authority, they only present the
> opinions of the members of those lists.  When I see a document from the NSF
> that specifically states that IANA had the authority to introduce new gTLDS
> (something even Sexton has recently said they didn't have on a usenet
> discussion with Jon Postel's brother) I will be satisified.
>
> Anything else is just more presumption, which is what led to these problems to
> begin with.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
>
> iD8DBQE44aIW8zLmV94Pz+IRAp0DAKCUeSXH3DSyxUhcIxTJ3wlm5C/DRwCg0x1Q
> 3I7z+3t8C7F8L02Lh2jzro8=
> =zio/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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