Re: Draft New Draft

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@linux.lisse.na>]

In message <19990210130559.C32507@songbird.com>, Kent Crispin writes:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:38:06PM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> > 
> > > Kent, you talk about these relationships, but I just don't know of very
> > many.
> > > Which of the many ccTLDs that have relations with sovereign governments
> > > are you talking about?  If you mean that governments are aware of their
> > > existence, then I suppose that's a relationship, and you are correct.
> > > If you mean that there is any formal or contractual relationship,
> > > I believe you are gravely mistaken.  Would you care to give some examples
> ?
> > > Of domains with more than 15,000 names in them (the top 20), I can think
> > of
> > > only two.
> > 
> > I *didn't* say that the top 20 ccTLDs (or indeed any) had no relationship
> > with governments.  I said that they had no formal or contractual
> > relationship with governments.
> 
> And what I said was that I was only interested in *de facto*
> relationships, regardless of formality.  It was you that changed that
> to "formal or contractual". 
> 
> Willie Black, for example, tells me that Nominet understands *very
> well* that they run with the implicit permission of the UK
> government, and it is my strong impression that this is true for most
> of the European registries.  This is de facto control by the
> associated sovereign, which is the only thing of importance -- not 
> whether there is a formal contract.

This nonsense rates 6 on the Kent-Meter.

el