[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 16-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Where, from these facts, do you find that the prospective registries went,
> as you say, "off on their own?" They went off based on the direction of
> IANA, authority notwithstanding.
> Based on this, these companies have been harmed.
Then take action against IANA for misleading you. But the fact that someone
made promises they couldn't keep is no reason to give you advanced standing in
this legitimate process.
> Fact: ICANN is now, for all intents and purposes, IANA.
No, this I challenge. ICANN assumed operation of IANA, but it is not the same
organization by any stretch. And even if it were, the current process is one
sanctioned NOW under the DoC agreements, and anything prior is not, and has no
> I think the answer here is clear.
I agree. But probably for different reasons.
>>By giving them no advanced standing they have to qualify on their merits
>>their merits alone. This ensures that the best choices are made, and not
>>someone who decided to go off on their own gets a shot above someone with a
>>bettter proposal simply because they refused to wait and get an official
>>sanction for their activity.
> If the criteria are objective, and the prospective registries meet or
> exceed the criteria, then there is no question of "better" or "worse,"
> there's just a question of "qualified based on the criteria." By your
> logic, are the testbed registrars "better" than all those that have
> followed? Of course not.
The best possible candidates should be selected, bottom line. That doesn't
mean they will ALWAYS be the best, but they will be the best candidates at the
time of the application process.
> So the question is, should pioneer registries be given first opportunity
> to qualify based on objective criteria? I say the answer is yes.
They should be given the same opportunity on an equal basis as anyone else.
They have done nothing to attain any special privileges.
William X. Walsh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----