Hi Onno Hovers, you wrote on 7/3/99 8:34:50 PM:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jay Fenello wrote:
> Sorry again, Jonathan,
>
> This question presumes that ICANN has inherited
> the IANA root. I most strongly object to such
> a conclusion.
>
> To repeat, ICANN does NOT have any *legitimate*
> claim to manage the old IANA root.
>
> The last authoritative, community-based consensus
> on that question was the White Paper, which ICANN
> has ignored since its inception. (overly kind as
> this may be :-)
>
>And how would that make a difference? Or to go back
>to the topic of alternative roots: why would a not
>so perfectly managed ICANN root system have to be
>afraid of even less perfectly managed alternatives?
>
Why would you assume alternatives would be managed in a manner inferior to
ICANN's methods? This is an attempted negative deflection of the topic.
>How little of the white paper and how little of the
>community consensus is implemented in (for example)
>the ORSC root?
>
Why would you state the question with a negative assumptive posture?
This is not meaningful nor constructive. You can do better than this, Onno.
>Regards,
>--
>Onno Hovers, MS/Ir, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Gene...
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm very happy @.HOME(sm)
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
