[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] Older Registrations
William Walsh wrote:
>I will only point out that the IAHC effort HAS to give the impression
>had the authority, even if it didn't, because all of their work, and
all of the
>promises they made to the CORE registrars, were predicated on this self
>Whats funny is that both the self-proclaimed registries and CORE both
>argue that IANA had an authority it didn't have, and for which there
>documentation for it having, in order try and bolster their respective
>It really does seem they have more in common than the CORE supporters
>But both claims fall far short of being accurate.
Since we are into "can-of-worms-opening" mood, let's open this one as
When I first joined this process, I have been told (and I somewhat
believed) that IANA had the authority to make changes to the A-root.
My "technical" half failed to understand why if IANA had the power, the
A-root was hosted somewhere else, but my "political" half suggested not
to investigate further.
So I "grew up" with the convincement that, for ordinary matters (like
addition of unchallenged ccTLDs), IANA was doing the job, but if some
really itchy wuestion was going to ever come up, the "pitch-hitter"
would have eventually come at-bat.
Among the CORE Members, I was one of the least surprised by the issue of
the "Green Paper". The record of one of my interventions at the CORE GA
in Washington, D.C., on this subject (w/o agreement with USG, no cigar)
should be sowhere in the minutes. This few hours before the Green
So much for history.
Now to present times.
The ICANN BoD is likely to decide on this matter.
Will they look back at history and take into account priority of
applications? Maybe, but this is very unlikely to be the leading
What value has an E-Mail message "reserving" one or onehundred gTLDs, is
something that will be evaluated by lawyers. What I would look at, if I
were ICANN, is the solidity of the enterprise, the seriousness of the
business, the likelihood of providing a good service to the customers,
and these kind of things that have little to do with the debate going
ICANN has, IMHO, one big task (among others, of course): to improve the
management of the DNS. In spite of the criticism, NSi has set a
standard. The next delegated gTLD (if we will ever have a *real* one)
*cannot* fall short of this standard.
Will ICANN choose chronology rather than reliability? I seriously doubt.
(willing to take bets)
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