As always, we seem to be unwilling to let facts get in the way of a strongly held view: At 07:18 PM 2/1/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
One "hijacking" makes others legitimate?
When one is the well-established (i.e., ever since the inception of service) authority for an activity and when a change has been planned for a very long time, then one is not "hijacking" the service to put that change in place.
The US Government owns the roots and owns IANA (since it funds it). Without
False twice. The USG has power over a portion of the root, not all of it. Whether it has "authority" over any of it is yet a different question, but it certainly doesn't have authority over the entirety. The authority for root rests with IANA. The USG provides funding to IANA, but IANA's authority comes from the community not the US government.
NSI's operation of "A" is under NSF directive - aka, the US Government.
And how convenient has been NSI's interpretation of that directive. The directive was absolute yet NSI continued to add TLDs per IANA's direction, without further consultation with the USG.
Now its under the Department of Commerce's directive. Again, the person paying the piper calls the tune.
Directive? When did it achieve that status? I thought this was just a proposal being circulated for comments.
The piper has said they intend to pass control to a private, non-profit US corporation with the FULL IMPLICATIONS OF US ANTI-TRUST LAW bearing on that organization. That organization is *NOT* the current IANA, although it might bear the same name.
Odd that no one noticed that IANA has been exploring assorted methods of moving out from under USC-ISI cover and USG funding for some time. How very convenient that the USG "proposal" just happens to match the version of the plan that IANA has gravitated to.
And yes, I do mean Mr. Postel and Mr. Manning, specifically, should be
And how convenient that no one seems to have noticed that a judge did, in fact, do some review of IANA and the derivative IAHC work and found it just fine, thank you very much.
Heh, if they did nothing wrong, then what's the problem with a look back at
What an interesting approach to the Law, viewing it as a management review technique. I guess that explains the incessant calls for legal action.
Wrong again; consensus requires discussion and OPEN PROCESS, neither of which has been present in the past. What has been present is an effective
Right. Totally lacking. No public discussion or modification. Amazing that anyone would think otherwise. All the email exchanges, all the public meetings, all the modifications must be an illusion.
That's not CONSENSUS - its control by an Emporer and, IMHO, an abuse of power.
But, as Anthony noted, you would rather have control by the White House? d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker at brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 03:55:41 MET 1998 ---------