🚀 go-pugleaf

At 02:21 PM 4/10/98 -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>>Please elaborate on what you mean by those who would be king?  NSF knew in
>>the fall of 95 that IANA funding would not go on forever.  It tried to
>
>The MoU folks.

Some facts about Tony's pet enfant terrible:

1.  Authorized activity of IANA.

2.  Results of the activity approved by IANA.

3.  IANA is claimed by US Government to be acting on behalf of US
government (and has been in thie activity since the inception of the DNS).

4.  US government was thoroughly aware of the activity and never
communicated disapproval of its instigation or rejection of its results
during any of the process.

5.  US government senior staff member from NSF/FNC was a full member of the
activity and never expressed reservations or disapproval of it.

This makes the Magaziner Green Paper a post-hoc reversal of established
governmental approval.

So if you insist on claiming that the US government is the ultimate
authority in this matter, then you need to resolve its previous explicit
approval of the activity if you are going to claim that the MoU effort was
inappropriate.

Over to you, Tony.

d/
________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker                Brandenburg Consulting       +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com      675 Spruce Drive       (f) +1 408 249 6205
www.brandenburg.com        Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA