[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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 
Not fact.

> 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 
> granted.

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 
> ignored.

Of course they can.  They almost certainly will be.

Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html