[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Not exactly. RE: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked
At 08:46 PM 3/30/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Even if I were to give you that IANA HAD the authority at one point (which I
>don't believe by any stretch), NSF clearly took that authority
>away. Since the
>NSF was not consulted and was not a party to whatever IANA was doing, the USG
>who does hold the authority is not under any obligation to IOD or any one else
>on this subject.
Jon apparently relinquished the IANA authority to NSF officially according
to George Strawn's testimony:
>> NSF's DIRECTIVE TO NSI REGARDING PGMEDIA's REQUEST FOR NEW gTLDs
>> 45. Under the Cooperative Agreement and RFC 1591, NSI had no
>> unilateral authority to register new gTLDs. NSI instead was required
>> to consult with the LANA regarding any applications for new TLDs.
>> PGMedia's request for the addition of hundreds of new gTLDs was
>> initially forwarded by NSI to the IANA. Subsequently, I was infommed
>> that by letter dated April 4, 1997, the IANA disavowed any authority
>> to make a decision in response to the request. NSI then referred the
>> question to NSF, which viewed IANA's disavowal as inconsistent with
>> RFC 1591's requirement that applications for new TLDs be disposed
>> of"with consultation with the IANA."
NSI was being sued by PGP Media/Name Space to include their gazillions of
TLDs in the root. Jon's involvement was as the IR delegating authority to
NSI (as documented in RFC1591, the co-op agreement, etc.). Jon relinquished
that authority to absolve IANA from that lawsuit. This allows IANA to
respond to the lawsuit with the following letter dated the same day:
The bandwidth is out there...
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html