IAHC Plan rejectd by US Gov't

Fri May 30 14:06:41 UTC 1997

Paul A Vixie wrote:
> 
> I've never understood the question of US Government support.  They need to
> use .GOV and they should be taking charge of .US and they certainly have a
> clear claim to .MIL, and that's pretty much the end of it.  I certainly do
> not wait on the likes of Brian Kahin to tell me what to put into BIND, and
> I can only guess that the IANA doesn't care what Brian Kahin thinks ought
> to be put into "." either.
> 

Well, since IANA works for the US government as a subcontractor on the
InterNIC contract, they should care.  Or wait, does IANA even exist
anymore???  Wasn't their contract already ended?  It's rather
interesting that IANA never stopped NSI from charging for
domains(perhaps because they were a subcontractor to NSI) or that the
original draft-postel promoted monopolies like the current NSI
plan(perhaps because they were a subcontractor to NSI).  Hmmmmm, maybe
IANA has been working in the best interest of NSI for quite some time? 
Can you spell dupes?

> Having Kahin's group announce that they don't like the IAHC plan is about
> as relevant as having them announce a position on Hong Kong's government or
> the price of tea in China.
>

But it is relevant(in both your examples also).  If you don't understand
why then perhaps you have not been paying attention.  Why do you think
Reed Hundt is leaving the FCC?

> Internet "BIG".  US Government "little".  I wonder, if the French government
> were to announce that they supported or didn't support the IAHC plan, whether
> anybody would even comment on it?
>

Probably not, the French government doesn't contract out for the
operation of the internet domain system.

> There are, by the way, some mailing lists missing from the "CC" header in this
> thread.  If we're going to spam NANOG, shouldn't we spam BASKET-WEAVERS too?

BTW, I admire lunacy in an individual...it gives them passion:-)

Vince Wolodkin