Re: [ga] Older Registrations

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

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


On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> No, it doesn't, Chris.  Delegated authority doesn't exist in a vacuum, it
> is
>> really quite simple.   Go ask Richard Sexton if you want someone who is
> more
>> inline with your position and he will tell you the same thing.  I notice
> you
>> never responded to that point.
> 
> I did ask Richard. He didn't agree with you. He's also not on the "ga" list.

Then ask him to reconcile that with what he said to Tom Postel.  

- ----------
>As advisor to the prez, Ira Magaziner could yell at anybody he wanted, I don't 
 >think that was his style, however. By the time Ira got in touch with Jon the 
 >test had been completed, and Jon's attorney had chapter and verse on the
chain 
 >of command for the root servers. I think Magaziner was surprised that 
 >the authority was Jon.
  
 I'm sorry, Jon never had that authority. If he did he could have added tlds to
the root servers or moved the A root from NSI, but he couldn't. 
  
 There are contracts that show who has operaitonal and editorial
 responsability for the legacy root zone. The US Government, first the NSF and
now the DOC has always had the final authority.
- ----------

This is what he said, very very recently in response to Tom Postel, Jon's
brother.  Doesn't seem to fit with what you are saying, Chris.

 >> If it isn't spelled out, it can't exist, Chris.  At the very minimum it
> should
>> be implied in the documents, and its not even to that level.  Take
> yourself
>> apart from it for a minute, and stop reading them from the assumption that
> the
>> authority exists.  You will get a much better understanding
> 
> Then how do you explain IANA adding .int? How do you explain IANA
> assigning port numbers?

I have not seen anything that says IANA was solely responsible for adding .int.
 Have you?  Do you have a document on the history of .INT that shows it was
done solely on the authority of IANA?

The way I understand it, the proposal originated somewhere else, was fielded by
IANA, who in turn recommended it to the USG oversight, who gave them the go
ahead.  Thats the way I have always heard it told.  And that is totally
consistent with the chain of authority.

- --
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/

iD8DBQE45AkS8zLmV94Pz+IRAqhMAKCecFj5hXD2mNT8yNVDeVrsTRiQnwCcDfPa
u8LPv0US/5hiT8ldKlvN7U0=
=i9hK
-----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