Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

["John Palmer" <jp@adns.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@vitaminic.net>
To: "Sandy Harris" <sandy@storm.ca>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform


> On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:14:10 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >> If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> >> they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> >
> >Possibly.
> >
> >> The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root,
> >
> >The protocols require that there be only one root:
> >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt
> 
> Do Chinese have a law that recognizes IETF's authority to require that
> there be only one root? (Not that I like the "national roots" approach
> - but, given ICANN's "evolution", it seems to me more and more
> likely.)

The US doesnt have a law that recognizes the IETF's authority.

In fact, we have a higher law that says that other roots are legal: 
Its called the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Operating a root network is a protected act of publishing - of 
free speech. Any law attempting to ban other roots would be
struck down.


--
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