Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

todd glassey wrote:

> > As per constant practice (recalled in RFC 920) the TLD (sub-namespaces)
> may
> > originate from one sub-namespace which administers it (as its referent
> > gTLDs, sTLDs), or from another sub-namespace or from the global namespace,
> > you then only register it (ccTLDs, moTLDs).
> 
> Who said that this practice was sane?

I will.

> Its not, and using a RFC from the IETF
> is hardly a way of legitamixing something.

For any technical issue about Internet protocols, they (and the rest of
the
structure, IESG, IAB, etc) aren't just the only legitimate authority.
They
are the only authority, period.

> Their practices are so corrupt and flawed

Examples? Evidence?

IETF practices aren't perfect, but they do work. This contrasts starkly
with the CCITT/ISO/etc attempt at setting standards for internetworking,
which failed miserably (and good riddance).

> that itis my personal opinion  that anyone that relies on
> anything from the IETF gets what they deserve.

Says he, in a message sent with the SMTP mail protocol which uses TCP
over IP, finds the receiving server via DNS and gets its packets
routed by ARP, BGP, etc.. Every set of initials in that sentence is
a protocol defined by the IETF. You appear to rely on them.
--
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