Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 03:16 25/07/2006, todd glassey wrote:
By the way - what State's or Country's laws are the IETF's documents
governed under and why is this  not in any of the IETF's documents including
the Solicitation RFP itself???  My favorite is the Affidavit which comes
with a perjury clause in it with no statement of who's perjury laws were
being used? US? Virginia? California? who's ???

Dear Todd,
this is a key point for the future of the Internet standardisation and governance process (to enter MoU outside of the ICANN/ISOC family, and permit interoperability, the point must be clearified). Unfortunately Brian refuses to answer it. This leaves with the only possibilty of a Justice action. The problem is its cost, hence the incentive for a structure having the capacity to carry it. The langtag issue will definitly provide it. My hope is that it can deliver the answer before the IGF process consolidates the digital ecosystem standardisation process under a de facto or formal ITU-I. Obviously the end of the WTO Doha process will not help reducing the balkanization creep.
jfc


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]