Re: [apnic-talk] Reality check
Deick, Berry and all,
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > Reality check - IANA is not currently a legal entity. If it was, they would
> > be sewed. This is the #1 problem with the actually create of IANA. How to
> > transition from a US government contract to a group that has broad consensus
> > and will not get bogged down or blasted out if existence as it's born from
> > law suits.
> >
> > Barry
>
> Barry,
>
> I am not sure of your point. If you are worried that the new entity will be
> challenged and invalidated in court, then there is only one answer. Since we
> are going to create something, we must do it right. If we create a sound legal
> entity, it will survive challenge just as all the other entities have done.
> The other "alternative," doing nothing, is not an option being considered by
> anyone.
We are not sure what Barry i referring to exactly as he was not precise either.
But it would seem that he is not for the new Non-Procit entity being required to be
incorporated within the US. If that is the case, than it would appear that there
are some that don either not yet understand the WP and it's ramifications, or
that they wish to disregard the WP.
>
>
> If, you are making a different argument--that we should create an entity whose
> actions are immune from judicial review, then you do not want to do it right and
> it will be challenged and invalidated in the courts, at least in the United
> States.
We agree with this analysis as well. Such a attempt would be both pointless and
fruitless.
>
>
> Here is the the rest of the reality check. Apply it to your situation. I have
> applied it to mine.
>
> If you are "wronged," you wish for a "right." If you are the wrong doer, you
> wish for immunity. If you are the governed, you wish for legal redress of of
> abuse of power. If you are the government, you wish for absolute discretion.
> Everyone wants to be the dictator. But, if there is one, the majority will be
> slaves.
How true. And for this reason it is our belief that Jon Postel and Don Heath
should
step down from their possitions. Jon, because of his lack of management skills that
have
left us in a possition of now expansion of the Dns by this time. Don Heath for his
obvious lack of objectivity and undo influence that he has attempted to exercise
with little lack of a strong base form the Stakeholder and user community.
Jon Postel should not serve on the "Board" nor should Don Heath for these
basic reasons. That is not to say that they should not serve in an advisory
position to the "Board".
>
>
> Which is your reality? Are you going to be the governed or the government? Do
> you want rights or prerogatives? Do you want dictates or decisions based upon
> clearly stated and fairly applied criteria?
>
> I want law, legal responsibility, redress and access to courts.
We agree strongly!
>
>
> Barry, please explain what you are recommending to this community.
Yes, please try to be concise and complete if you can.
>
>
> Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
> Internet Texoma
>
> * APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
> * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *