Re: [ga] Older Registrations

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

On the other hand, it's very useful to determine the extent to which
pioneer registries relied upon the direction of IANA (e.g. CORE
and its IANA-signed MoU, perhaps). This would have direct
bearing on the application of a pioneer preference.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>
To: <william@userfriendly.com>
Cc: <simon@higgs.net>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations


> William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> >.....   There is no document that gives IANA this authority.  
> >
> 
> And even if, what a difference would it make it now?
> 
> IMHO, a couple of years ago USG has turned the page. By issuing the 
> White Paper, and delegating power to ICANN, the framework of reference 
> has changed.
> 
> Now, if somebody will ever add new gTLDs in the root, it will be ICANN 
> (or at least somebody under supervision of ICANN). All the elements of 
> this discussion will be useful only for litigation in court (supposing 
> that somebody would be willing to bring "IANA" to court), but not at all
>  to determine if and when and which gTLDs will be eventually added to 
> the root by ICANN.
> 
> It will be more useful to define the GA position on the allocation of 
> new gTLDs "in principle", considering that there are still roadblocks on
>  the way (for instance, the question of the "famous marks").
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> --
> 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

--
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