maybe this helps to settle much:
1: "anything that is incorporated and/or has its main governing seat
in the US is not considered to be an impartial and international body"
2: "as long as we all understand and appreciate the consequences of the
US (enforced) protective umbrella, nod the way the US administration
wants us to nod, and of course bend over backwards to the dominating US
industry (that like to use foreign (non-US) talent to design and complete its
products (as these guys are just cheaper), we're doing not too bad"
3: "the international network community should take serious initiatives
to ensure that the US is only ONE vote amongst some 100 peers"
4: "hence a 'Swiss solution' headed by a Swede, and a non-compromised
staff would be ideal"
--Bert
At 01:19 PM 6/10/98 -0400, Camillo Pasquariello wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> For some people, the term "international" refers to "between nations" as in
>> requiring treaties and the like. That is, the word is a formal term of art
>> and they do not like having it used in other ways. The IAHC originally was
>> tasked to work on iTLDs, where the 'i' meant internaional. This point of
>> sensitivity about the word was why we changed to 'generic'.
>>
>> Similarly, the IETF has consierable global standing, but it is not a formal
>> treaty organization.
>>
>> d/
>
>==========================
>
>DAVE, et al -
>
>Sometimes I think the Internet Community is too darn
>'sensitive' and should be more assertive about it's truly
>international character!
>
>ISO and IEEE are examples of internationally recognized,
>private-sector [ie non-governmental] standards bodies, and
>have no sensitivity at all to the use of the word
>"international" in describing themselves.
>
>/C.Joe P-->
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:32 PST