agreement

g

(resorting to the simple and sufficient form of response! :-) )

At 10:57 AM 10/12/96, Hugh Irvine wrote:
>Geoff Huston wrote:
>>
>> Logically an acn.au name system should be operated by the name authority
>> by which acn.au is derived. So with all respect you are talking about the ASC
>> as the operator rather than Simon and Hugh. Sure the ASC _may_ subcontract,
>> but I can forsee all kinds of issues if Simon and Hugh attempt to independantly second
>> track the actions of the ASC as a naming body and if or whatever reason they
>> get it wrong.
>> 
>> If you are going to introduce external name authority derivation records into the DNS
>> and start to populate them then the only competent operator of such a specal
>> purpose domain is the original operator of the name space in question.
>> 
>
>This was always the intent. Operating acn.au would necessarily depend on the 
>blessing of the ASC in some way shape or form.
>
>Also, regarding Geoff's comments concerning DNS litigation, there was a 
>similar thread in the INTIAA DNS meetings arguing for explicit government 
>exclusion of liability for the DNS registries. Clearly this must happen to 
>avoid the registries becoming embroiled in civil lawsuits. This does not imply 
>that the Internet community abrogates its responsibilities in managing and 
>operating the name space, rather it seeks formal recognition of this role 
>outside the court room.
>
>Hugh

-- 
Geoff.Huston§telstra.net

Network Technical Manager    Locked Bag 5744,
Telstra Internet             Canberra  ACT  2601
                             AUSTRALIA

ph  +61 6 208 1908
fax +61 6 248 6165


-----------------------
And as a quick postscript to those cut and paste reporters lurking
out there...

Copyright of this message is asserted by Geoff Huston
Permission to reproduce this message in whole or in part in any medium
other than the Internet is expressly NOT provided by the copyright owner.
-----------------------