Re: [ifwp] Re: AN IFWP CONSENSUS-BASED PROPOSAL

[martys@pop.interport.net]

Is there an entity  negotiating with NSI even as we speak to handle things
on October 1 (as a back-up)?  NSF?  IANA?



>On Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 12:59:19PM -0400, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>> [ Kent Crispin wrote: ]
>>
>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 11:03:21AM -0400, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Again, what I feel is the missing piece of the puzzle here
>> > > is the question of Jon's source of authority. Those who
>> > > believe it resides solely on his personality/good
>> > > looks.lnegth of beard/evil ties to the Black Chamber are,
>> > > IMHO, wrong.  Certainly, inertia is part of the
>> > > perception, but Jon has authority based upon the
>> > > perception of his relationship to NSF.
>> >
>> > A good point.  However, this is still authority based on perception,
>> > and I would argue that it is fundamentally of the same character as
>> > the "personality...evil ties to the Black Chamber" suff you mentioned
>> > above.  Besides such perceptions (which collectively are really rather
>> > weak sources of authority, when it gets right down to it), the real
>> > source of authority is, I have concluded, something very different.
>>
>> But all governance at some point depends upon the consent
>> of the governed and Jon governed for a long time before
>> anyone rebelled. Now, there is real money changing hands
>> and agreeing that the peasants are revolting isn't enough
>> to allow us to solve our problems. Jon's authority to
>> issue definitive names or numbers is derived from the NSF.
>> Ignore it if you will, but when you cause someone else
>> harm and they seek tort damages don't be surprised if you
>> get asked some questions about how you feel about IANA
>> during discovery.
>>
>> .  .  .
>> > The real source of authority for IANA is the operational necessity that
>> > such an authority exist.
>>
>> Again, I agree with the civics lesson, but submit that
>> this will not protect you from a damages judgement if you
>> cause harm to others by choosing to ignore IANA and it
>> affects operations for others.
>
>I am liable for a damages judgement if I damage others, whether I
>follow IANA or not.  Moreover, there are all kinds of cases where
>people don't follow IANA, with no real reason to fear damages.  For
>example, the alternate DNS roots that have been established clearly
>don't follow IANA, but that simply has not been a factor in any
>legal troubles they may have had.
>
>[...]
>
>> Sorry, I still remain convinced that the real issue is
>> "what should be the mechanisms and procedures for a
>> transfer of power concerning DNS and other issues of net
>> governance now administered by NSF by various contractors,
>> and to whom should this power be transfered?"
>
>While it might be appealing to try to find a legal basis for IANA's
>authority, I really don't think there is any.  IMO NSF ceased to be
>relevant as a source of authority several years ago.  In fact, though
>my knowledge is not very deep, it really looks like NSF has been
>trying hard to dodge all "authority" bullets for longer than that.
>
>> Here's my test. Try ignoring the question of whether
>> IANA can coerce others. Try ignoring the question of
>> IANA's authority and cause hard to someone else.
>
>??I'm having a little trouble understanding your test.  I imagine you
>mean "harm", but I still can't parse it clearly...
>
>> Now, which of these two attitudes would likely cost you
>> more in legal bills?
>
>It seems clear to me that the issue is whether or not you cause harm,
>not whether you follow IANA's orders/suggestions/recommendations/whatever.
>
>But I am having trouble coming up with a real example here.  Maybe: If
>I were an ISP, and I signed contracts with my customers that I would
>guarantee a certain level of access to the Internet, and I decided to
>configure my nameservers to a non-IANA root, and as a result my
>customers didn't get that access, indeed they could sue me for
>damages.  But the "authority of IANA" would have absolutely miniscule
>significance in such a case.  In fact, it would almost certainly just
>not come up.
>
>I guess I will just have to give up -- I honestly can't think of a
>case where the legal authority of IANA has any significance as far as
>causing harm to someone else.
>
>> I submit people can go for hours without considering the
>> question of Jon Postel coercing anyone to do anything
>> (try it, I did! :-)
>>
>> I gather people have already gone to jail for the later.
>
>Could you be more specific?  I know of absolutely no case where
>someone has gone to jail because they ignored the authority of IANA?
>Or perhaps you are making another point and I am just missing it?
>
>> Has anyone developed an overwhelming desire to see if they
>> feel lucky today? ;-)
>
>Well, it's more like I am overwhelmingly confused :-)
>
>--
>Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",
>kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
>PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
>http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>
>__________________________________________________
>To view the archive of this list, go to:
>http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>___END____________________________________________