Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vittorio Bertola" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Sandy Harris" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:14:10 -0700, you wrote:
> >> If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> >> they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> >> The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root,
> >The protocols require that there be only one root:
> Do Chinese have a law that recognizes IETF's authority to require that
> there be only one root? (Not that I like the "national roots" approach
> - but, given ICANN's "evolution", it seems to me more and more
The US doesnt have a law that recognizes the IETF's authority.
In fact, we have a higher law that says that other roots are legal:
Its called the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Operating a root network is a protected act of publishing - of
free speech. Any law attempting to ban other roots would be
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