[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
- To: Synthesis@travel-net.com
- Subject: Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
- From: Masataka Ohta <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 2:27:31 JST
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Iana@iana.org, List@giaw.org
- In-Reply-To: <35AA3141.97D63CC5@travel-net.com>; from "Dan Steinberg" at Jul 13, 98 12:09 pm
> > If we don't have time, IANA can be a department of ISOC, which is
> > already incorporated. For the stability, then, ISOC itself should be
> > relocated to, say, Geneve, as soon as possible.
> If it were as easy as this, there would have been no need
> for a White Paper, Green Paper, terabytes of e-mail,
> lawsuits, meetings, media campaigns, etc.
Yes. Exactly. The GP and WP has never necessary. They instead
are the sources of problems.
> Like it or not,
> the US govt. has authority over certain assets.
Locally within US, sure. But, that's all.
> Like it or not, (see Karl Auerbach's analysis at
> http://www.cavebear.com/nsf-dns/ ) has given credence to the
> notion that the .com database is proprietary information.
.com database with contact information in SOA is not proprietary
to NSI nor USG and can be zone-transfered to everywhere.
> It is important to remember that the net is edge-controlled,
> although the phenomena of inertia gives it the appearance of
> central control.
That why the WP must be ignored.