Re[6]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

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

Hello Roeland,

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 2:23:36 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>>
>> What claim are you refering to Roeland?  That anyone can create
>> additions to the name space, this is done all the time with
>> sub-domains.  That not everyone is allowed to add additional TLD's,
>> that is an established fact.  

> This is a fact that is amply disproven. The other TLDs exist. That is a
> fact. There is no issue of "allow". The principle is; that which is not
> specifically disallowed, is allowed. Believe it or not, that can be
> considered the prime directive of the US Constitution, which is the defining
> document of the USG, whose DOC actually manages the DOC root zone. It is
> also one of the fundimental differences between the US and most other
> governments. It allows individuals the maximum respect. That's the main
> reason my family immigrated here, in 1960.

Sure they can create them. In their own namespace.

They are not allowed to create them in the established root server
network.

>> ICANN currently has that delegated power, no one else.

> ICANN has a delegated power. It is not exclusive.

Yes, it is, as far as the established root server namespace is
concerned.

> There is no law, nor can
> there be a law, that prevents someone operatiing of their own root server
> systems

Right, but those systems are unique to themselves, and do not create
any rights to or inside the established namespace.

>> That people created their own name space and additional TLD's within those
> name
>> spaces, established fact. 

> True.

And with the KNOWLEDGE that they were operating outside the
established namespace.

>> That they opted out of the legacy system, established fact evidenced by
>> their creating their own name spaces with TLD's not supported in the
>> legacy system. 

> There is no established link between your evidence and your fact. The
> creation of additional names does not automatically exclude one from the
> political system.

You understood those names would not be a part of the established
namespace system.  A better way of putting it may be that they
KNOWINGLY created these domains OUTSIDE the scope of the existing
namespace, and with the knowledge that this was outside the existing
namespace.

>> That they have no authority within the legacy system,
>> established fact. 

> I disagree. Or are you claiming that ICANN is an exclusive, non-transparent,
> club? By directive, it is otherwise. There are many documents to support
> this (my) claim. My context is the entire name space and I am claiming that
> the ICANN must consider ALL contexts, by directive from the USG, and not
> just the context of the DOC root zone.

Wrong.  Prove it.

ICANN has the authority to manage the established namespace, subject
to limited DoC oversight currently.

All of the alt.root tlds were created with the full knowledge that
they had no authority to create those TLDs in the established
namespace.

The namespace is not a single body.

There can and are numerous namespaces, public and private.  They are
not "one" entity or body.

That is a fallacy.

> The DOC, in creating new TLDs, is
> encroaching on those other contexts wherein those TLDs are very much legally
> valid (the legal business context).

No, they are not.  Decisions affecting the established namespace have
no impact or effect on other namespaces being operated by privately
owned companies and individuals.  These include both private root
systems intended for internal consumption only, and those other root
systems that permit (and encourage) others to utilize them.

> Are you, by extention, claiming that
> non-DOC listed business is not a valid business? MHSC is a Delaware licensed
> corporation. It is not listed with DOC. MHSC just sent off its IRS filings
> last month. Should we not have done that? The logic you present here follows
> exacttly such a path. It is in error.

No, your logic is faulty.  The premises need to be better scrutinized.

>> That they shouldn't have any authority, self
>> evident as they opted out and have no control over the legacy system.

> Circular argument. It only holds if the declaration above holds and it
> doesn't.

It most certainly does hold.

>> I can't see what claim you mean or reasoning you require.  The
>> statement is self evident by looking at the facts behind the
>> statement.

> Go back to Calculus class. There is no such thing as a self-evident proof.

No, but there is such as thing as proofs that are so simple to solve
that they may as well be self-evident.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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