Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> Logically an acn.au name system should be operated by the name authority
> by which acn.au is derived. So with all respect you are talking about the ASC
> as the operator rather than Simon and Hugh. Sure the ASC _may_ subcontract,
> but I can forsee all kinds of issues if Simon and Hugh attempt to independantly second
> track the actions of the ASC as a naming body and if or whatever reason they
> get it wrong.
> 
> If you are going to introduce external name authority derivation records into the DNS
> and start to populate them then the only competent operator of such a specal
> purpose domain is the original operator of the name space in question.
> 

This was always the intent. Operating acn.au would necessarily depend on the 
blessing of the ASC in some way shape or form.

Also, regarding Geoff's comments concerning DNS litigation, there was a 
similar thread in the INTIAA DNS meetings arguing for explicit government 
exclusion of liability for the DNS registries. Clearly this must happen to 
avoid the registries becoming embroiled in civil lawsuits. This does not imply 
that the Internet community abrogates its responsibilities in managing and 
operating the name space, rather it seeks formal recognition of this role 
outside the court room.

Hugh