[tz] Elliot - I want to talk about the TZ project ASAP...

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Todd Glassey said:
> It 
> also needs to be noticed in the I-D that TZ's are a function of 
> International Metrological Law and Treaty and are managed by the legal 
> holders of those rights for the jurisdictions represented.

I don't believe that's the case. Timezones are a function of local
legislative and/or executive authorities *or* of common custom and usage.

For example, in the UK the timezones [1] are purely a matter for
Parliament and the courts and nobody else. They aren't tied to any kind of
international law or treaty.

> B)      The TZ information needs to be tied to some Authority Context 
> so that each TZ is tied to a National or Judicial Context in some form. 

Again, I disagree. Some of the zones in the database are "common usage"
rather than de jure. See, for example, Australia/Eucla.

> That means each TZ is functionally tied to a Originating Authority - in 
> the US for instance this would be 15 USC 260 which then further 
> stratifies the time data to a set of Metrological Authorities within 
> that Legal Instance of Time. That means a TZ Management Actor for each 
> TZ published must be established.

Why "must"? The purpose of the database is to document what actually
happen{s,ed}, which doesn't necessarily match the legal claims.

I don't accept that you can identify these "Originating Authorities" and
"Metrological Authorities" in the real worls.

> I suggest adding a STAKEHOLDER ROLE to the Submission Practice and that 
> the Stakeholder may amend the content of the publication-list with 
> respect to the TZ(s) they hold control over here,  and that a simple 
> notice from the Stakeholder to the DB Coordinator should trigger both 
> an update to the list and a public-service notice to a new TZ Announce 
> List which is specific to TZ Changes and availability Statements from 
> the DB Coordinator/DBA

Even if you can identify these people, they may not want to get involved
(they're unlikely to care about us). While it would be nice if they sent us
updates, we can't force them. Nor should we accept any message from the
alleged authority as necessarily being correct or complete - look at some
of the past events where governments have changed their mind at the last
moment or multiple layers of government have disagreed.
> 
> C)     The Data Base is actually a legal publication

Huh? What do you mean by that.

> and the IETF has 
> nothing to say about its presentation of that content. Further the IETF 
> failing to properly make changes creates both civil and potentially 
> criminal liabilities in a number of situations that OLSON was immune 
> from under the 11th Amendment Protections accorded to the NIH.

Sorry, that's total nonsense. The database is a "best efforts" work. There
is no claim that it is completely accurate, so there is no liability
involved. As for criminal liability, I can't even imagine how.

> To sidestep that liability there are a number of things we can do with 
> the Stakeholder Role suggested in B too - we should talk more about 
> this and who actually owns this data.

Who owns it is one of the topics of the current litigation.

> Likewise, since this is a legal 
> document that is being published with is a distillation of a number of 
> metrological and trade treaties

No, it's a distillation of a large range of sources.

> the IETF or ANY part of the IANA stand 
> in the way of a legal jurisdiction making immediate changes to that 
> list, its international law.

Huh? The existence of this list and database does *NOT* prevent any
jurisdiction doing anything it wants with time.

[1] Plural, because the Channel Tunnel Concession Area in the UK observes
time one hour ahead of the rest of the UK. Plus, of course, the historical
different zone in Ireland.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather          | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive at davros.org     | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646