[ga-full] RE: [ga] This should settle it.

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

Let me quickly address this, as well...

>Chris, unlike you, I do not work for or own stock in a company which has a
>direct financial or other stake in this process where I would know the name
of
>each and every person who has been involved in this.

My surprise was that you would make sweeping claims of lack of authority,
and then not know the name of the individual at the NSF who could attest
to that authority (or the lack thereof).

>And all I can say is that I really
>hope your company is more prepared for asking these questions in court.
The
>best defense CORE can take is to just admit that IANA didn't have the
>authority, and use the lack of authority of IANA to totally defeat and any
all
>claims IOD might make or imagine they have to a top level domain.

I don't see how this has any relevance to the current trademark infringement
litigation. IANA doesn't enter into it at all. Your statement demonstrates
that you've no idea of the causes of action that IOD has brought against
CORE. It has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. I invite you
to read the public documents on the case if you're confused or curious.

>The bottom line is that if IANA had the authority, why did it fail to get
the
>IAHC domains included when it sought that?  The best test of the authority
>issue is when they actually tried to assert the authority and do something
with
>it.  IANA failed that very important test, and no documentation you have
>provided shows the authority existed otherwise.

Actually, they have. Let's answer your question. Why did IANA fail to get
the IAHC domains included? Simply because as of 4 April, 1997, IANA had
disclaimed any authority back to NSF. By that time, NSF had reclaimed the
authority for the USG as you assert. That's why IANA failed what you would
consider a test at the time.

At no time prior to 4 April, 1997 did IANA try to add new TLDs. Indeed, the
one time they were asked about it (the date in question), IANA decided that
they (or Jon Postel decided that he) would rather not be in charge.

But prior to 4 April, 1997, it is clear that not only did IANA believe that
it had the authority, but NSF believed so as well. Hence, my suggestion that
the cutoff date for pioneer preference is clear.

--
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