YOKOHAMA ... OR RUNNYMEADE ...?

Once there was a central government that believed its own press releases.

William I, conquered England in 1066 with the help of a bunch of noblemen from Normandy. William divided up his new conquest among those who had helped him, giving them each a little lesser kingdom called a "barony." These delegatees were called Barons (a few were called other things, but lets not get into that now). In addition, a few previous landholders were "grandfathered" into the system, and all was recorded in the central registry (called the Domesday Boke).

Now, technically, William did not give the land to the barons. They held it at his pleasure, and were expected to pay certain trivial rents as a sign of fealty. Also, the land did not technically get passed down by inheritance. Technically, William made a new delegation when the old baron died. But it quickly became custom for William (and his successor) to chose the son of the previous baron.

The barons pretty much ran their baronies independently. They paid lip service to the king and sent troops to support him in his foreign wars, and even showed up themselves to fight sometime. But they pretty much did as they liked at home and made up laws to govern their own serfs and peasants, had their own courts, etc.

One hundred years later, Henry I, then King, decided that his kingdom needed order. He invented something called "the common law," and set up common courts for everyone to go to.

This was quite an innovation! Suddenly, the common people had an alternative venue than the local baronial courts. Since the judges were the same (the roamed around the country), the judgments tended to be much more consistent. Furthermore, Henry invented this really keen idea of getting all the local people together when holding a trial to ask them to determine the facts. This was called "trial by the country" or "trial by jury." Needless to say, this was a big hit in certain circles. Since the laternatives were frequently unpleasant (trial by combat, trial by ordeal, trial by oath, or Baron decides for himself).

Henry was careful, however, not to step on the toes of the barons. Although the barons were subject to the king's law, and technically held their baronies at the king's pleasure, Henry I did not impose the common law on them directly. They were allowed to keep their old way of resolving fights among themselves (trial by combat, trial by oath) and could keep their own courts (although they couldn't stop people from coming to the king's courts). The Barons were not terribly happy, but they accepted this for various reasons.

About 30 years later, John became King of England. John decided that he was (a) going to impose his rules on the barons, and (b) was going to make them pay for it. When the barons objected, John pointed out that, legally, he owned the land anyway, could kick them out at any time, and they had sworn oaths to obey him. He was king, they were barons, and that was that. If they didn't like it, too bad.

John was absolutely right on legal grounds from a strictly theoretical point of view, although the barons had some legal arguments of their own. In the end, however, legal arguments didn't matter.

You see, John had forgotten that it didn't matter if he were king and technically owned everything. While John had armies of his own, a lot of his troops came from the barons. Indeed, the barons maintained their own little armies, titularly to serve the king. Sadly for John, he forgot that these little armies took their orders from the barons, not the king.

So when John went to enforce his new Order, he was met by a bunch of angry barons telling him to stuff it. The old way was good enough for William I, Henry I, and everyone in between. they might be willing to renegotiate, but they damn well weren't going to be dictated to.

Poor John just didn't get it. After all, he was *king*. God himself had annointed him (through the Archbishop of Canterbury). His word was law! He was descendant in line from William I, and he had William I's rights. So the barons had better give over.

William I was one of us, said the barons, and ruled as first among equals. Even Henry I, who laid down the common law, never stepped on the anceint privileges and liberties guaranteed by custom. So john could come off his high-horse and negotiate with equals, see.

But John had his pride. He orded his armies and judges to enforce his laws against the barons, and declared he would remove any baron who didn't toe the line. He would de-list their baronies and delegate them to someone else who would toe the line.

Now, John was stronger than any single baron, but he was not stronger than *all* the barons. And *all* the barons were now well and truely pissed at John (who had just lost half the kingdom in France and seemed to have a real talent for embarassing himself inother ways). So the Barons got together and forced John to change his mind.

At a spot called Runnymede, John was forced to sign over many of his royal prerogatives to the barons, and give them a permanent formal role in the central government. This contract was called the Magna Charta, or Great Contract.

Ultimately, the Magna Charta worked against the barons, since it called the attention of the common people to the fact that there was now a central government and they could come and play too, but that's a story for another time.

King Mike seems to think that, just because he has been annointed by God (Commerce), and claims the Conqueror (Postel) and believes the legal theory that he has written, that he can impose his will. The question is whether the ccTLDs will, like the barons, realize that they do not have to listen.

Copyright © 1995 - 2007 ICB. Inc. All rights reserved. "ICB Toll Free News" is a trademark of ICB Inc. ICB Inc. assumes no responsibility for use or misuse of information contained herein and / or accessible via this site. ICB Inc. cannot and does not vouch for the accuracy and / or usability of any of the contained or linked-to information, and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions.