>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 17:13:43 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579DE18C42
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
id 41591F00A; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:55 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
id 17064F00D; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:55 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net
[207.217.120.100])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C149FF00A
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.1] (ipa225.trenton2.nj.pub-ip.psi.net [38.26.139.225])
by grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10542
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <v04210112b3cd09a7b80c@[192.168.0.1]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:06:29 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: R
>
>Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about
>international telecommunications law and policy development than tony.
Gordon, the first principle of the legal decision regarding the
Internet and the CDA (Reno vrs ACLU decided in 1996) was that
one must look at the unique aspects of the communications medium.
And the judges proceeded to examine the unique history and development
of the Internet.
>if you think that the only thing that defines the internet is its R
>FCs you ar e incredibly naive.
That unique history includes a standards setting procedure of RFC's.
That is the basis to determine the law that will govern the Internet.
International telecommunications law and policy development of
other communications media are *not* the basis to determine what
the law will be regarding the Internet.
Lawyers who try to do otherwise will only be contributing to serious
problems.
And they will not be building on the kind of good precedent that
was established in the CDA decision at the Philadelphia Federal
District Court and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ITU is governing another telecommunications medium, not the
Internet.
Gordon, are you replacing the RFC's with the ITU's decisions?
Ronda
