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

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

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


On 28-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 12:59 PM 3/27/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
>>On 27-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
>> > I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be recognized,
>> > and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known
>> > contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new
>> > TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are named on the
>> > iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to
>> > iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
>> > registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI (currently no
>> > competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).
>>
>>There is no reason to recognize those.  None at all.  It would serve no 
>>purpose
>>in this process to recognize claims made in an unrelated and unofficial 
>>process.
> 
> IANA, as keepers of the root zone, recommended that new iTLD applications 
> be filed following RFC1591 at "hostmaster@internic.net". The 
> InterNIC/Network Solutions domain name template accepted TLD applications 
> at the root, and forwarded those requests to IANA.
> 
> That is an official and formal process.
> 

But IANA is not the keeper of the root zone, Simon.  The USG is.  They
specifically delegated to IANA the ability to manage the ccTLD delegations, but
new gTLDs were specifically outside of their scope.

IANA can recommend you send new top level domain applications to Bill Gates, for
all it would be worth.  They have no validity.

It is not an official process, because it had no sanction from the only
authority who could make it official.  The US Govt.

I've said this over and over again to you, and you still can't provide any
evidence that shows that the USG gave IANA the authority to delegate new gTLDs
without its prior approval.   When you can point me to specific
official document that says that, then we can reexamine this.  Until then you
keep answering with the same old tired arguments that are clearly flawed, and I
keep pointing out why they are flawed.

The circle is broken, Simon.  The IANA did not have this authority.  Ask Sexton
for some clarification, he had an interesting exchange with Jon Postel's
brother on a usenet newsgroup about this very subject recently.

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
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/

iD8DBQE44UUW8zLmV94Pz+IRAmt7AJwOvWa8q3ejZd4eGGHr87k5L+hfyQCg9aRY
L6O4wXcpuITpuys1OCfWd44=
=0A1k
-----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