Re: Reasoned debate requires reasonable statements

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Jul 28, 1997 at 03:15:46PM -0500, Chris Clough wrote:
> A common misperception may have been interpreted from your post: 
> In fact, NSF sponsorship _never_ protected NSI from legal
> liability. Network Solutions has born all the risks and expense
> for its InterNIC operations.

I hope people people don't take that interpretation.  I said that NSF
was relatively immune, not NSI, and I was addressing the legal
liability of the oversight body, not the registrar. 

> Crispin wrote:
> > The primary power NSF really brought to the scene is limitation
> of 
> > legal liability -- as a government agency they are relatively
> immune 
> > from suit.  Any group that steps in is considerably weaker in
> this 
> > regard.  Certainly the IANA is not immune to suit, nor are the
> root 
> > operators, nor are Jon Postel or Paul Vixie or any of a host of
> other 
> > players.  [Whether such suits would win is a totally different 
> > question, of course.]
> > 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html