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

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

William and all assembly members,

  Look WXW, the authority was implied or indirect, not explicit or
direct.  So why nit pick this?  Just to make a point that if not
explicit and direct, authority didn't exist?  Hardly a reasonable
argument, and certainly not reasonable.  The only fuzzy point is
whom had authority to add any TLD's to the Root itself.  That was
definitely NSI, and they proved it years ago.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >> On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >> > I've never said it grows out of vacuum. I've said that the NSF gave IANA
> >> > authority over numeric and alphanumeric identifiers.
> >>
> >> Nothing in those documents gave them authority over ALL domain
> > identifiers.
> >> The ones I saw were clearly in the context of IP Address management.
> > There
> >> document never clearly gave them authority over all domain identifiers, at
> >> least not the ones that actually came from the USG and weren't written by
> >> others or IANA itself.
> >
> > It also didn't give them control over protocol port identifiers, but that's
> > another
> > thing they were doing for years and years. Shall that authority now be
> > rolled
> > back, too?
> >
> > Get realistic here, your argument falls flat when you start claiming that if
> > it's
> > not spelled out it doesn't exist.
> >
>
> No, it doesn't, Chris.  Delegated authority doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is
> really quite simple.   Go ask Richard Sexton if you want someone who is more
> inline with your position and he will tell you the same thing.  I notice you
> never responded to that point.
>
> If it isn't spelled out, it can't exist, Chris.  At the very minimum it should
> be implied in the documents, and its not even to that level.  Take yourself
> apart from it for a minute, and stop reading them from the assumption that the
> authority exists.  You will get a much better understanding
>
> The documents are clear in their full context.  Like you, I urge people to read
> the surrounding text, and see exactly what was being discussed..
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE45AbG8zLmV94Pz+IRAop9AKCgNIA+rqCK3tifCmotTYqczT8TUwCgrzTP
> iqePX9kb7Aji4BXC7fBBsbU=
> =8wsZ
> -----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