Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050716170915.04471420@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:21:33 +0200
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>,
	"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Last call: IANA adaptation of the UN disclaimer 
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20050716205822.07588e30@localhost>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C20D6DB@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<001801c5897f$93920780$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.0.0.20.2.20050716205822.07588e30@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 14:09 16/07/2005, Martin Duerst wrote:
>[chair hat off]
>I have to agree with Randy. Besides his arguments, I'd also
>like to mention that neither RFC 1766 nor RFC 3066 had any
>such disclaimer.

They did not confuse ISO 3166 and UN M.49. But I agree that RFC 3066 was a 
huge political mistake. However its lose application permitted it to 
survive. The ethical problem is with all those who use it.

>Also, I'm affraid that if somebody with a
>traditional IETF background finds this paragraph, we might
>get some serious IETF Last Call comments.

The pity is that they accepted RFC 3066.
Could be a good IETF obituary.

>Also, if (as JFC thinks) this is something for the IANA/
>ICANN/watever lawyers, then it's best if we keep out of it.
>If asked for, we can point to the various text proposals in
>the mailing list archive.

Here I must disagree: what lawyers will want is to make sure the doctrine 
of the document is consistent with its political involvement and legal 
obligations/infrigements.

You cannot just do anything you want and then expect lawyers to save your day.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru