I would like to see a fix which promotes DNS names into the 
"authorative name space" such that a DNS name is its own
authority, and does not require the (often conflicting) citation
from other name authoritieis as a usurping derivation of authority
for actions by third parties as appealants against DNAs.

I'm sure it will not end out as simply as that, but this is a good
starting position

  Geoff


At 10:32 AM 4/12/96, George Michaelson wrote:
>Although not exactly identical, AEWG had a brief spate of trying to get
>a legal opinion out of the attorney general. It was a profoundly negative
>process (from memory)
>
>I think this time round, the goal is different: DOCA are motivated (or need to
>be) and the letter is presumably aimed at making them understand what kind
>of legislative protection is needed to ensure this process doesn't freeze in
>FUD.
>
>I'm still confused about which model is being proposed: Does the DNS become
>self-defining under some protective law, or does the DNS become protected
>by passing the issue to a higher authority (the law courts/arbitration) and
>accepting the outcome, and because of THAT it gets protection under law, or
>what?
>
>Is the letter just defining a problem space or proposing a fix?
>
>-George