Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 04:40:49PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without force
> of law.

How do you know that an executive edict doesn't have the force of law in
Sweden? They do in the US.  In fact, could you explain the relevance of
"the force of law" to this discussion? The rfcs don't say anything about
the "force of law" -- they just require that the responsible party for
the domain be in the territory in question.  The rfcs make no judgment 
as to what is "legitimate" force.

> 
> > From RFC-1591 we have:
> 
> The problem with your quotes from RFC1591 is that they are not binding on the
> delegation of the .SE top level domain.  RFC1591 is the "contract" between IANA
> and most ccTLDs and the means of delegation.   The contract is the text of
> RFC1591 at the time of delegation.   Later changes to the RFC1591 cannot be
> binding on the ccTLD unless they further agree to these changes.
> 
> Furthermore, ccTLDs such as .SE that were delegated prior to the creation of
> RFC1591 have no such binding agreement between then and IANA, their delegation
> authority came without such restrictions.  If ICANN attempts to change that
> now, without entering into a new contract in advance, they could really face
> some strong liability.  

Your experience as a lawyer is showing.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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