RE: [ga-roots] TLD's

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
|> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 2:59 AM
|> To: 'dassa@dhs.org'; ga-roots@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] TLD's
|
|> >
|> > The current organisation was incorporated in March 2001 I see.  As
there
|> > were new bylaws etc developed after this time it would seem to
indicate the
|> > actual organisation although with roots in a previous one was actually
|> > formed at the incorporation date.
|>
|> It's also under US law, not that of OZ. For example, MHSC was
|> incorporated, in Delaware, in 1997. However, it was a
sole-proprietorship/DBA
|> since 1990.
|> I was the original sole-proprietor and am now the second
|> largest shareholder (see http://www.mhsc.com/about.htm). While the
incorporation date is
|> important and establishes the actual birth-date, of the legal entity,
that
|> does not necessarily mean that it is the actual start of the
organization.
|> In fact, many organizations start before they actually incorporate. Of
|> course, transfering the assets of the sole-proprietorship to
|> the new corp is a formal processs.

Such entities also undergo change with incorporation and can not be classed
as the same originating organization.  The previous entity becomes part of
the new ones history but they are distinct entities.  In your example above
of your own company, it is now a totally different structure to what it was
before.  Different rules, different people involved and in the future
possibly you will no longer be involved in it.  What country it was
incorporated under doesn't really have much to do with it.

|> AFAIK, Leah doesn't run a root zone server, nor does the TLDA.

I didn't say they did, however, the Mission Statement and the nature of the
organization does mean the TLDA will be involved with root operations.
What I find extremely interesting is this attempt to completely distance
the TLDA from any mention of root operations.  No matter, I'm sure the
context will become clear in future.

|> In a nacent organization, EVERYTHING is a BoD issue and you of all
should
|> know that. If someone offered to sell you a Glock pistol (and OZ is
|> definitely anti-gun, for those that don't know) and you decline
|> the offer, because you aren't allowed to own such a thing, should you be
|> jailed? SHould your organization be vilefied simple because that offer
was
|> made? It is the same thing. It was a BoD issue because no one else, in
the TLDA, had the
|> authority to make that decision. Now you wish to demonize them
|> because they did their jobs, by enforcing their own charter? That is
simply wrong!

To use your story, my purpose in raising this issue was to illustrate the
fact there was a gun runner going about making such offers.  There was no
vilification of the TLDA over their decision.  I raised the fact they had
to make such a decision, in other words that a gun runner was present.

|> To drill this point home even further, someone offers to give you a kilo
of
|> crack-cocaine and a distribution network, and you refuse. Are you now a
|> crack dealer simply because they made that offer?


Again, you appear to have missed the purpose of my raising this issue.  It
is about the crack dealers, not the people who may refuse the offers.


|> MHSC has a number of TLDs, no one makes decisions on them other
|> than MHSC.
|> They are MHSC intellectual property. How well that stands up to
|> challenge remains an issue, in intellectual property law (and not just
|> trademark law). However, you seem to be castigating an organization
which,
|> collectively and by charter has no control over any single TLD, for
declining an
|> offer of a TLD, from a private entity.

I was raising the issue that the TLD was under the control of a private
entity and being offered to a corporation where a small number of people
had the opportunity of gaining control of that TLD.

The point being that the TLD was a private one.  It is not a part of the
Internet name space in actual fact but belongs in a private name space.  If
you wish to trade in TLD's, fair enough, but that doesn't make them apart
of the Internet.

We may argue that the Internet is actually made up of private
infrastructure but I think the weight of opinion is that the Internet is a
public utility.  As such do private TLD's have any place on it, rather than
being adjacent to it?

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html