yeah right Ronda..... sigh <plonk>
this take the cake for the most inane and stupidest thing i have ever
heard you say... and if you r eally don kn ow that I am not a fan of
the itu then you are not only naive but stupid...... find me an
knowledgable lawyer that suppost the tripe about r fcs as a some
unique law of the internet. But i don't expect to see your answer
since you have joined brian hollingsworth as todays additioons to my
filters
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 17:13:43 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
> by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579DE18C42
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix)
> id 41591F00A; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:55 -0400 (EDT)
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074)
> id 17064F00D; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:55 -0400 (EDT)
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net
>(grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.100])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C149FF00A
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from [192.168.0.1] (ipa225.trenton2.nj.pub-ip.psi.net
>[38.26.139.225])
> by grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10542
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-Id: <v04210112b3cd09a7b80c@[192.168.0.1]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:06:29 -0400
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Status: R
>
> >
> >Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about
> >international telecommunications law and policy development than tony.
>
>Gordon, the first principle of the legal decision regarding the
>Internet and the CDA (Reno vrs ACLU decided in 1996) was that
>one must look at the unique aspects of the communications medium.
>
>And the judges proceeded to examine the unique history and development
>of the Internet.
>
> >if you think that the only thing that defines the internet is its R
> >FCs you ar e incredibly naive.
>
>That unique history includes a standards setting procedure of RFC's.
>
>That is the basis to determine the law that will govern the Internet.
>
>International telecommunications law and policy development of
>other communications media are *not* the basis to determine what
>the law will be regarding the Internet.
>
>Lawyers who try to do otherwise will only be contributing to serious
>problems.
>
>And they will not be building on the kind of good precedent that
>was established in the CDA decision at the Philadelphia Federal
>District Court and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
>
>The ITU is governing another telecommunications medium, not the
>Internet.
>
>Gordon, are you replacing the RFC's with the ITU's decisions?
>
>Ronda
****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
****************************************************************
