On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 09:10:13AM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
[...]
> >But in fact what they will do is continue the joint DNS project with
> >the USG to come up with a sound policy-making process for DNS.
> >There is nothing written in the MoU, though, that says that the
> >current bylaws are gospel or a "constitution", or anything.
>
> Kent,
>
> This is not exactly true. These agreements are being entered into on
> the basis of these bylaws.
The semantic fuzz of natural language guarantees as a matter of
principle that nothing is "exactly" true. I'm not even sure what
you mean by "exactly true". However, what I said is *very close* to
exactly true.
> It was only when the bylaws were acceptable did the USG enter into the
> MoU. Its bylaws MUST continue to be acceptable and represent a broad
> consensus or it is operating outside those agreements AND its charter.
There is a small flaw in your statement. Let me rewrite it so it is
accurate:
It was only when the bylaws were acceptable to the USG did the USG
enter into the MoU. Its bylaws must continue to be acceptable to
the USG for the MoU to remain in force.
That is, it is the USG, in the office of the NTIA, that decides what
"acceptable" means.
In any case, I was responding to Dthreennis' weird statement that
ICANN was not yet a private corporation., and before that to Jon
Zittrain's comment that the bylaws were a "constitution". I am very
concerned that metaphors like that are quite conterproductive, and
server to fan flames that should go out.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
