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

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 mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf