RE: Draft New Draft

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

Kent Crispin wrote,

> >
> > Sure, RFC 1591 agrees with you here (NOT):
> >
> >       Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
> >       inappropriate.  It is appropriate to be concerned about
> >       "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.
>
> Sure.  The government in question defines what those terms mean.  It
> also defines the community.
>

Kent, I can't believe you've written this.  You said that the IATLD was just
"interpreting" RFC 1591, that when you read it, you found it to be entirely
consistent with a "pro-sovereignty" interpretation.   Now I can see why:
you've set up a closed system, where every term means whatever a government
wants it to mean.

Ergo, "Internet community" is whatever the government defines it to be.  So
why are we all wasting our time?  Why spend hours and hours worrying about
fairness and process.  Why don't we just ask the Commerce Department to do
all of this for us?

Kent, I think you're just dead wrong about this.  Governments don't define
what a community is, least of all the Internet community as Jon Postel used
it.

Antony