[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] RE: [ga] Older registrations
At 11:58 PM 3/19/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >and the fact that Chris Ambler's ".WEB" request was #3 in the list
> >for that particular TLD.....
>As has been pointed out, the other two entries in that list
>were, according to IANA, not requests to run a registry, but
>suggestions that .web would be a good TLD to add. IOD's
>request was the first request to run the .web registry.
>I won't go over the rest, which has been hashed out more
>times than I know over the last 4+ years.
And this is completely consistent with the quoted statement from IANA's list:
>In most cases if a reply was sent at all it said something like:
> While there is much discussion of a process for establishing
> new registries and new top level domains taking place, no
> conclusions have been reached as yet.
> Request sent to the IANA for a new top level domain will be
> filed with the many other requests. There is some considerable
> possibility that this particular request will not be granted
> (in simple words -- don't plan on it).
Please note that this statement was *NOT* sent in reply to all iTLD
applications, bringing up some legal questions that we don't need to go
into now. Also, there are other circumstances involved where IANA
specifically said "OK, this is the plan". Again this isn't the right time.
But relevant to Mr Ambler's comments above are some of the criteria IANA
was considering for new iTLDs at the time:
Harald, I didn't realize you were a lurker way back then! :-)
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds
discuss people, and Fools argue.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html