I think Ronda Hauben, on the one hand, and Gordon Cook and Gene Marsh, on the other, are talking past each other. There is one distinct difference between ITU rules and RFCs, of course, and that is that the ITU is an international body subscribed to by national governments, while RFCs grew out of no such context. However, that does not mean that RFCs do not establish any precedent at all. Example: Quoting from Karl Auerbach: "(All in all the 512 byte restriction is a pain, and an obsolete one.)" That "restriction," which would have come out of a technical protocol limited by word size is in a very definite sense as much of the "law of internet governance" as is the fact that we in the U. S. drive on the right hand side of the road, while in England and many other places they drive on the left, a part of that kind of "governance". Necessity becomes practice becomes custom becomes an adopted (only 512 bytes, if you please) "regulation" becomes a law and the world follows along, hopefully adapting to better ways as the technology improves. Do RFCs have anything to do with freedom of speech or rights of privacy? I think not (or at least I've not seen one that purports to). Do they have to do with domain names, and are domain names a part of "internet governance?" There were and are RFCs relating to domain names, so the answers are yes and yes. De facto becomes de jure, and that is how the common law comes about. No end of statutes refer to "accepted business practices" or "community standards" or the like as the standard against which some specific conduct is measured, so people who write RFCs or set up protocols or distribute roots in whatever way are in fact writing the "law" on which future decisions will be made, whether they know it or not. Bill Lovell
