RE: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- SCHMIDNO.

[PacificRoot Hostmaster <idno@tallship.net>]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: PacificRoot Hostmaster [mailto:idno@tallship.net]
> |> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 12:34 PM
> 
> |> As Vint said himself when cornered by distinguished Conressional
> |> representatives, "uh... we're only responsible for our root."
> |> 
> |> That much is true - ICANN is central to nothing else.
> 
> I might point out that even that statement is over-ambitious. ICANN isn't
> responsible for the root. It is only responsible for making recommendations
> for the root. The USDOC is the responsible authority. It is a small factoid
> that keeps getting glossed over.
> 

Gosh, I don't have it at my fingertips here, but what should really blow
everyone away (and perhaps Prof. Froomkin can dig up the link quicker than
I can - no pun intended) is the response that DoC gave in its response to
this letter http://www.PacificRoot.com/news/00121700.shtml - specific and 
pertinent parts of the letter sent to doc follow: 

-------------------------------------------------------
...ICANN has no inherent authority to approve new TLDs (Indeed, even
ICANN's authority to operate is questionable as  matter of law. See Wrong
Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the
Constitution (Duke Law Journal 50:17 (Prof. M. Froomkin, October 2000)).
The Government Accounting Office ("GAO") has affirmed that ICANN can make
no authoritative decision concerning Domain Name administration without
express approval from the DoC. In its definitive July 7, 2000
letter/report to Congress ("Department of Commerce: Relationship with the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers") the GAO was emphatic
that final authority over the root server and its administration rests
with DoC.
--------------------------------------------
What the DoC said in their response to the letter above was almost the
complete opposite - That ICANN made the
decisions and not DoC.

Imagine that ;) We're all familiar with being ping-pong'ed back and forth
from one extension to the other and each time the department we get says
it's someone elses responsibility, and not their own :)

In fact, ICANN themselves affirms that they have no such authority either
(although they find it convenient to do so anyway and give permission to
their darlings to establish illegal lotteries (illegal gambling is a
felony in California). The link where ICANN admits this is actually on
their own dang site!
http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/esi-v-icann-13nov00.htm


Specifically:

------------------------------------------

"ICANN represents that it has no authority to implement new TLDs, and
that instead, it merely makes recommendations to the Commerce
Department..."

------------------------------------------

hm.... let's go ping pong again eh? 

Voila! It's the Department of Agriculture that must have this "Authority"
eh?

ROFLMAOPMP!

--
Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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