Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 27-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> Yes, the USG did create a process that bears their imprimatur.  They still
> have
>>  to approve the results, as a matter of fact.
> 
> The USG created a process for ICANN over the past couple of years. But
> we're talking about 1995 and 1996 here, when IANA was presumably in
> charge. You're saying that they were not in charge. If they were not in
> charge, then who was? Please show me the "authorized process" that
> was in place in 1995. I followed IANA. You're now telling me that IANA
> was not the "authorized process." I don't agree, but I'm willing to concede
> the point if you can document yours.
> 
> Christopher

There was no explicit process, Chris.  But the absence of a process does not
lend legitimization to an otherwise unsanctioned process.  And in any event,
the real process would have been to get the approval of the NSF.  They were the
only ones empowered to grant authorization to add new gTLDs at that time.
 

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE43+c58zLmV94Pz+IRAtUZAKCK1MympHCgNTO393OJbdboXg9PQQCeMOzR
oFKXugSVzKv/uKqdziX3vpc=
=pLh0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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