> Happy now?
not at all :-)
do you really think that the isoc/iana people would let such scenario go
trough ?
i dont think so
the decision of one working group of the government-it is not the
government itsself-we should definitely loby vice president gore:-)
is not legaly binding i understud
a "national" solution for the gloabl internet matters will never be
satisfide -maybe the EU says "hey this is a chance lets the governments
com together and regulate the dns and so the internet" than the
washington lobyists would not be satisfide :-)
if the washington lobyists get "what they want" some other governments
may not be satisfide-see EU :-)
what this says us is that there is a need for a global organisation
wich stays over some national interests wich claims to control global
common resources
unfortunately other countrys governments are not so aware of the
importentds of the global internet and are therefor not so active in it
it would be interesting to see how the global internet looks like from the
point of international law-is internet a property of the USA or what ?:-)
or is it our all property
i see hier a room for the united nations unfortuantely they have no realy
knowledge in the matters of global internet-wich exceptation of itu so it
would be not wise to give them "the competence" but i see the UN as a
posible discussion field for governments and states about the chalange of
global internet and how they may cooperate and becomme good partners
otherwise the internet would go on with or without them-having them
be a nice partner or beeing left out-there is no way to control the
dns by controling the root server
you can build new root servers some where else :-)
isnit :-)
> Antony
sascha