[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] Older registrations
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 10:08:27AM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> Two things are important in this discussion. Reality and an accurate record
> of history.
> I was there. You weren't.
"I was there" != "What I say is an accurate reflection of history".
> You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by the
> historical facts:
> In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid
> out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published the
> results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org for
> some inexplicable reason).
IANA published the collection of applications that people had sent in
over a substantial period of time, whether on whim
> At the same time, IANA started the process to
> establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs
> (beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD
> applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at IANA
> (I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that process.
> And here we are.
> As Harald has correctly pointed out, these applications may or may not be
That's not what Harald pointed out, and that is not what the disclaimer
said. It said "no conclusions had been reached yet" and "don't plan on
> The point is that in order to grant or deny an application, it has
> to be processed first.
Nope. "Not processed" == "implicit deny".
> One thing is certain, the applications cannot be
Of course they can. They almost certainly will be.
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
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