William and all,
One "Salient Point" that seems to fly in the face of on of you contentions here
is that " There is no precedence to suggest that any of this would be taken
seriously by anyone, and that is what I am trying to point out." In lew of this
questionable statement, William, how does the transition to the "Euro"
in terms of currency jive with you statement I quoted here?
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 31-Jan-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > At 03:33 PM 1/30/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >>I'm having a real hard time following any logic in this.
> >
> > I am sorry if I am being entirely unclear.
> >
> >>> OTOH, once ICANN controls the root-servers.net system, this control channel
> >>> becomes very much weakened. What I am realizing is that this also
> > weakens the
> >>> authority of the ccTLDs. They can no longer proxy their authority via the
> >>> USG,
> >>> as clearly as they can now. This begins to weaken the case for the
> > ccTLDs and
> >>> RFC1591, or so it appears.
> >>
> >>I disagree with this completely. ccTLDs were never a product of the
> >>governments, Roland. And that is the only way this would make sense. ccTLDs
> >>never claimed the USG as their source of authority and RFC1591 is not a USG
> >>policy document. Can you please try and explain how any of this is relevent,
> >>as I am having a real hard time understanding the point you are trying to
> >>make
> >>here.
> >>
> >>> Please understand that I am not trying to take sides in this, only to
> >>> understand the implications of current trends.
> >>
> >>I don't see any "current trends" with implications that you bring up.
> >>
> >>I fail to see anything in this that is germaine at all really, Roland.
> >
> > It is germain in that it is an attempt to establish the boundaries of what
> > is possible and what is not wrt ccTLDs.
>
> But the entire premise is based on the fact that governments sanction their
> TLD, and that is not true and has no precedence. So I am trying to figure out
> how all of this applies to real life, and the current debate.
>
> Any government who tried to do what you suggest would be laughed at, quite
> simply, just as they would be if they tried to change their telecommunications
> country code or Postal Codes (which use the same ISO code).
>
> There is no precedence to suggest that any of this would be taken seriously by
> anyone, and that is what I am trying to point out.
>
> There are no "current trends" which would lead to the hypothesis you present.
>
> It really doesn't seem to be applicable to this discussion.
>
> If you are looking for an answer (as your post to Kent suggests) then please
> just spell that out. What is the exact point you are trying to make? Because
> the hypothesis you are putting forth doesn't seem to lead to any salient points.
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 30-Jan-99
> Time: 16:29:21
> ----------------------------------
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
