Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

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

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


On 03-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 04:40:49PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> 
> [...]
>> 
>> That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without
>> force
>> of law.
> 
> How do you know that an executive edict doesn't have the force of law in
> Sweden? They do in the US.  In fact, could you explain the relevance of

No, they don't.  Only after legislation creating a structure of authority is
passed.  

> "the force of law" to this discussion? The rfcs don't say anything about
> the "force of law" -- they just require that the responsible party for
> the domain be in the territory in question.  The rfcs make no judgment 
> as to what is "legitimate" force.

Force of law is the ability of the government to force an organization to
conform to their requirements.  If an executive edict doesn't carry the force
of law, then there is no obligation on the part of the organization to adopt
the proposal from the govt.  Only if legislation creates such a means, can
those recommendations carry any force of law.  The RFCs are irrelevent for this
purpose, Kent.
 
>> 
>> > From RFC-1591 we have:
>> 
>> The problem with your quotes from RFC1591 is that they are not binding on
>> the
>> delegation of the .SE top level domain.  RFC1591 is the "contract" between
>> IANA
>> and most ccTLDs and the means of delegation.   The contract is the text of
>> RFC1591 at the time of delegation.   Later changes to the RFC1591 cannot be
>> binding on the ccTLD unless they further agree to these changes.
>> 
>> Furthermore, ccTLDs such as .SE that were delegated prior to the creation of
>> RFC1591 have no such binding agreement between then and IANA, their
>> delegation
>> authority came without such restrictions.  If ICANN attempts to change that
>> now, without entering into a new contract in advance, they could really face
>> some strong liability.  
> 
> Your experience as a lawyer is showing.

Actually, those weren't my conclusions, but the conclusions of an attorney when
these very issues were being discussed just after the creation of ICANN.  If
you have something to show the analysis as invalid, please, by all means,
present it.

- --
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/

iD8DBQE45/n18zLmV94Pz+IRAi9jAKCcuNEhbG+HfMgbKFQ2dbMAscGF6wCgizmC
gmgmmYvtK60S6KL1s8qZZVw=
=t+Y1
-----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