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

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

William and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > First, you're wrong. Read it again. It says that IANA had the
> > authority.
>
> Yes, by referencing RFC's that have no weight of law, and were written at the
> behest, control, or direction of IANA itself, who cannot give itself the
> authority.

  RFC's in and of themselves do not have weight of law, true enough.
But under contract with the USG they could and in some cases are
referenced as a quasi standard or "Request For Comment" and/or
otherwise guidelines if associated or referenced in said contract(s)
with the USG.

>
>
> > Second, if you don't know who George Strawn is, then you really
> > don't know your history on this.
>
> 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.

  Whether or not a person owns stock in a company that may have an
interest does not necessarily determine or influence that persons position
or viewpoint on much of anything, even if that investment is substantial.
I am a stock holder in a number of stocks with different companies that
have an interest, and it does not have any sway over my opinion or
position on any of these issues what so ever.  To paint Chris or anyone
based on this fact or assertion alone is paramount to prejudice beyond
reason.

>  However, I do have a good
> working knowledge from the years on these forums of the basis behind most of
> these issues.  Where I haven't I have made it clear, and asked for
> documentation to back up what you have tried to claim.   If what you say is
> true, finding documentation, and answering questions about the people who you
> are quoting and the authority they may or may not have, should not be so
> difficult for you to do.

  It isn't difficult to do, but it is not Chris's job or responsibility to do so
if questioned by you or me.  He can if he wishes of course, but the responsibility
to refute the documentation adequately is the responsibility of the one
doing the refuting.  Do you own homework is the key...

>  That you get so defensive over it when asked a direct
> and honest question to cite the authority of the person you quote, I only have
> to question if there is a reason you didn't just answer the question.

  No one is under and indictment here William that I know of, if so,
maybe you could show us a copy of that document?  >;)  If not, than
this mostly sounds like grandstanding or a bit of paranoia.

>
>
> So since you were willing to provide a polite answer to the question, I checked
> it out on my own, and discovered that the person quoted was a participant in
> the IAHC process, and a member (and co-chair) of the Federal Networking
> Council.  While I could not find anything that indicates that he has any
> authority to give an official opinion on the issue, I did note that a statement
> on the main page specifically seperates the FNC and the USGovt. with the role
> Mr Strawn played in the IAHC process.   It looks like his positions were not
> necessarily in line with the positions of the official bodies who actually DO
> have the authority, and they seperated themselves from actions he took outside
> the scope of his role.  As an IAHC participant, a high profile one at that, it
> was most certainly his opinion, as it was the rest of them, that IANA had this
> authority.  But his testimony is certainly not authoritative on the issue.

  ROFLMAO!  Please.....

>
>
> > I've made my point.
>
> No, you haven't Chris,  you really haven't.  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.

  This may be a good strategy in a court of law, if the judge would believe it.
Given that, I would say it would depend on the venue in which any court
proceeding would take place.  California would not be a good one for IOD.
But than again I am sure Chris is already aware of this.

>
>
> You've made the point that you are not intereted in providing documentation in
> the full context in which it exists, and instead to take bits and pieces of it,
> quote it out of context where it appears to support your position, take
> unofficial and non-binding documents and assert their official status and use
> them to support your supposition, and otherwise ignore clear and compelling
> evidence that shows the opposite.

  There are always two opposing sets of documents and/or points of view
at least.  The determining factors in a legal proceeding will of course
look at these and make a judgment.

>
>
> The bottom line is that if IANA had the authority, why did it fail to get the
> IAHC domains included when it sought that?

  NSI refused to add them to the Root, don't you remember?

>  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.

  Again a supposition that is not in evidence or can be determined here
for a fact.

>
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE45CUQ8zLmV94Pz+IRAgX2AJ9LP8jRvzEaLj3P1xz43sgPvwXGfQCg5NR7
> NEF9tu2giEQx+M85ErqDIFs=
> =I13E
> -----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