Gordon, I thought that you claimed to be a reporter? Why are you posting to the North American Network Operators Group? Why are you cross-posting our discussions to congressmembers? And why did you seize upon wording that was not mentioned in the message? I was talking about the privacy and security of our root servers, and the domain zones they point to, not the IETF standards process (although there are also interference problems there). Most root servers are _NOT_ owned or run by the US government, and having the US government try to move ownership of them all to a new corporation is repugnant to many of us. We are doing just fine, thank you very much. Are we supposed to be impressed that you are now having direct talks with Ira Magaziner, when one of our own capable members has been unable to get an appointment for a month? Normally, of course, on this list we talk about actions that we need to take on our own behalf, usually dealing with operations, as opposed to detailed legal analysis. To your message of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt):
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com> Note also that I have just pulled down both the jan 30th text and the federal register texts of the green paper. I searched both texts for the string
policies and standards for those activities
and found nothing in either one.
Perhaps when you are reporting on legal issues, you might learn to read legal documents. A US Rule implements US statutory authority. In this case, the proposed rule published in the Federal Register cites as authority: 47 U.S.C. 902(b)(2)(H). Try searching there. Now, some of the legal analysts say that the proposed rule abuses the power of that section, that the section only applies to the executive branch, and that there is no legal authority to set up a corporation for international commerce. But that's what the proposed rule says, and until the proposed rule is withdrawn and re-published, that is the wording we have to comment upon.
In his Feb 23rd interview with me Ira said:
Magaziner: Let me make clear then what is going on. I think that the word "development" was not a correct word to represent the function we were trying to indicate and that has been pointed out to us by a number of people. So that is a good criticism. There are mistakes in this report as there would be in any report and when they are pointed out, we acknowledge them and say we will fix them. Whether the word assignment or not is the right one I don't know, but development is clearly the wrong word. I think the process of assigning port numbers is what we are trying to convey.
But do we even want the US government involved in "assignment"? I am glad that he admits "there are mistakes". The proper action by him is to withdraw the proposed rule. But again, until the proposed rule is withdrawn and re-published, that is the wording we have to comment upon. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32