[ga-full] RE: [ga] Older Registrations

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 30-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> William says that Jon was mistaken, and that he didn't have the
> authority. William is unfortunately wrong, for a number of
> reasons. First, NSF gave IANA that authority in its grant to fund
> IANA. The grant document is public record, I strongly recommend
> getting a copy and reading it. 

You refer to a document that does NOT give that kind of authority.  Please,
quote the exact paragraph that states that IANA has authority over creation of
gTLDs.    The EXACT paragraph, Chris.  
 
> Second, William claims that IANA had authority for ccTLDs, but not
> iTLDs. If true, I ask that William document this separation of
> authority. I have cited the NSF document that gave complete
> discretionary authority (as has Simon). William claims that this
> was for ccTLDs only, although that's not specified anywhere. One

That document never stated that IANA had authority over creation of new gTLDs
either, Chris. 

Please, quote the exact paragraph that states that IANA has authority over
creation of gTLDs.    The EXACT paragraph, Chris.  

Let's stop dealing with twisting words around.  No more quoting multiple
documents that APPEAR when taken out of context to refer to something they
don't.  Give the EXACT document and the exact section that specifically states
that IANA has this authority.

The only documents I have seen are vague, and do seem to be directly related to
IP ADDRESSES and the relevent .ARPA domain and refer to ccTLDs.  Now I think
this is partly related to the fact that the people writing those documents
never envisioned new gTLDs being an issue.  But if that SPECIFIC authority was
never granted, it never existed.

I'm tired of this dance, Chris. Either get specific, or end it.


> could reason that there's no way to tell, based on the document
> alone. If, however, IANA had no authority to add iTLDs, then I 
> question how Jon added .int? William never answered that one
> when I brought it up a couple of days ago. If IANA didn't have
> the authority to add anything but ccTLDs, one would have to
> presume that NSF would have stopped the addition of .int.

I don't have the clear history of .int.  Do you?  If so, please post it.  My
understanding is that the creation of .int was NOT at IANA's behest.  So
perhaps you should do your homework before assuming that IANA created it.
 
> Based on these items, it is clear that IANA believed that the
> authority was there, solicited applications for iTLDs based on
> that belief, and that there is no factual or implied reason to
> doubt that belief. There is also factual evidence that the
> belief was correct, and that the discretionary authority was,
> in fact, vested in IANA.

So this is the crux of your argument.  There is nothing that says they DON'T
have the authority, so it can be assumed they did.  

THAT IS NOT HOW THESE THINGS WORK.  Authority doesn't exist in a vacuum, Chris.
 It must be granted.   

There is nothing in any docuement that would give anyone the reasonable belief
that IANA had that authority.  When you go to court on this point, Chris, they
will not be looking to see if any document states that IANA didn't have the
authority, it will be on your shoulders to prove that they DID.  Not that they
believed they did, not that Jon may have said he did, but that they actually
were assigned that SPECIFIC task.

I wish you luck in trying to prove that, you've not done it here.

- --
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/

iD8DBQE447TP8zLmV94Pz+IRAkHSAJ4lF/V+e+HjQE6PNFpV2rxqGbb5vQCgwdBE
mzYtdT+jVNx8kN11MBURxRo=
=nBrS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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