[discuss] On the technical side
mg at telepresse.com
Mon Mar 17 22:58:16 UTC 2014
John and Andrew have decided you are on a different track then yours.
This is why the more you explain them, the less they accept what you
say, since you build on it. I therefore suggest you drop it. However,
I agree with you: this the crux of the whole issue, So, I will try to
clarify and get their position.
John and Andrew,
Jefsey did not say that the FAQ included anything blocking. He just
said that it should be studied to know *if* something would be
blocking. In insisting to know *what* would be blocking, you demand
JFC to study the document by himself what he is not interested in
since he disaproves its mere existence. However,
(1) this is not because he disaproves its existence, that this
document, which exists, cannot be of interest for you. In such a
case, he is ready to hear you, but it is up to you, as it comes with
the NTIA position, to sell it to him.
(2) in insisting on a point he did not make, and in not understanding
why he is not interested, you only confirm his reasons for
disapproving its existance, i.e. this is not a globally intended and
accepted document. If neither you nor the NTIA understand that not to
include the IETF Trust in the NTIA offer kills the offer, there is no
more reason to discuss any further..
I feel you miss the point that Jefsey thinks that the NTIA position
is well played but detrimental to the US and everyone, except, on the
short term, to the US TNCs.
Jefsey, I am correct in reading you?
At 21:02 17/03/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:54:32PM +0100, JFC Morfin wrote:
> > And I have answered you in detail that if you do not see it in just
> > thinking of that text, and need for someone to point it to you, we
> > have a problem.
>This answer amounts to, "It is obvious, and if you say it is not, you
>are wrong." Thanks.
> > The problem IS that you do not see the first and
> > main problem. That it is all over writen in reference and only in
> > reference to the US law. And therefore that it is subject and only
> > subject to the US law.
>But that's because the IETF Trust is in fact a trust created under
>some national law, and that national law happens to be that of the US.
>I'm not sure why you think there's a problem here, and even more I
>don't know what you think it has to do with the IANA functions.
>But in any case,
> > law. And therefore to every non-US citizen. The same as it would be
> > foreign to every non-French citizen if it had be written in French
> > in the sole French law context.
>if what you want is an agreement that has the guaranteed effect of
>national law under every nation, then what you need is an
>international treaty organization covering every single country where
>each publication does not come into force until the national law of
>every single member country is updated to implement the new provision,
>and there are no errors in said updating of the member countries' laws
>such that there are differences in the interpretation of the law from
>one country to another. I think you would find this sort of regime
>somewhat more hostile to innovation than the current one, but I am
>prepared to be wrong. I also suggest that, if you are able to achieve
>this result across every single country, you should try your hand at
>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss