Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

> All I have to say to this is that you should have made sure that he indeed
had
> the authority he was claiming to have.   You shouldn't get any higher
standing
> at the expense of those who have followed the authorized process because
of
> Dr. Postel's mistakes.  Why should they be penalized for Dr. Postel's
false
> actions?  (Presuming of course that these actions can be laid at his feet,
> which I am not sure I concede right now).

Name one individual or company that falls into your category of "following
the authorized process." They will have to state their intention of being a
registry, of course. If you can't, then your argument is moot.

Also, please define, as you're using it, "authorized process." If IANA had
no
authorization to do what they did, then they also could not have created
any "authorized process." We know that the USG did not create an
"authorized process" either. RFC1591, if IANA has no authorization, is
also not an "authorized process."

So, please define the term for me so I can be sure we're talking about the
same thing.

Christopher

--
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