[CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI

[Nigel Roberts]

I don't need examples.  I know examples exist.

Indeed, the fact that the RFCs have fallen into desuetude in respect of 
.COM is the best example.

I was specifically referring to intentional language in RFC 1591 and 
possibly earlier RFCs that established the Domain Name System.

I suggest that to the main extent, any hypothetical proprietary rights 
creation would have occurred then, not now.



On 23/05/16 12:46, Arasteh wrote:
> O
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 23 May 2016, at 12:28, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>
>> Many of the policies governing the root zone from the rfcs do _not_ apply throughout the tree.  I feel on pretty confident ground about this.  If you need examples I will provide when I'm at a real machine, but as a general matter it is dangerous to reason from "policy in ." to "policy for all domains."  The protocol is different.
>>
>> A
>>