[ga-full] Not exactly. RE: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

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

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


On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> George Strawn - just to give you a hint:
> 
> http://www.interact.nsf.gov/cise/contact.nsf/lastname/Strawn?OpenDocument
> 
>>36. ... IANA continued its function of overseeing the 
>>allocation of IP numbers and domain name registrations.

Most certainly it did.   This is not inconsistent with its role with regard to
ccTLDs. But it most certainly does not clearly give them any authority with
regard to new top level domains.    

>>38. ...  NSF understood that the LANA would authorize
>>substantive changes to the DNS only where those changes had consensus
>>support within the Internet community.
>>
>>45. Under the Cooperative Agreement and RFC 1591, NSI had no
>>unilateral authority to register new gTLDs. NSI instead was required
>>to consult with the LANA regarding any applications for new TLDs.
> 
> William, you asked for DIRECT EVIDENCE of IANA's authority. This
> comes from the DIRECTOR OF THE NSF in charge of these things. You
> can't have much more direct evidence than this!

"NSI instead was required to consult with...."  No where did it say that either
party had the ability or authority to make decisions regarding those
applications.  It provided a chain for the applications, nothing more.   
Again, since the assumption was (you said it) that new gTLDs were not going to
be created, it is safe to assume this was directly refering to new top level
domain applications within the ccTLD realm.
 
> READ NUMBER 36 AGAIN! This is a DIRECT STATEMENT by the NSF that
> IANA's function was overseeing the allocation of IP numbers and
> domain name registrations.

No, its not Chris.  I know you desperate what it to be so.  But its not.  If
IANA had the authority we wouldn't be here right now, Chris, discussing this. 
Bottom line.  If IANA had the authority, NSF would not have told NSI to not add
any new gTLDs if requested to do so by IANA.  

Even if I were to give you that IANA HAD the authority at one point (which I
don't believe by any stretch), NSF clearly took that authority away.  Since the
NSF was not consulted and was not a party to whatever IANA was doing, the USG
who does hold the authority is not under any obligation to IOD or any one else
on this subject.
 
> I reiterate...
> 
> I believe, that we can place April 4, 1997 as the cutoff date
> for any consideration of pioneer preference based on IANA's
> actions.

The date may as well be Jan 1, 1900 for all it matters.

- --
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/

iD8DBQE45C248zLmV94Pz+IRAnOeAKChKnY07W3N1u8/oLEe5B36XFwZ+gCgsmS8
QxkQNxWof4sllxHz2xkzhjg=
=bOqH
-----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