Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 01:36:18PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> Sorry, perhaps my language wasn't clear either: My problem is not with
> the registrars.  I am opposed to ICANN entering into an agreement with
> any registry (not -rar), at least during the testbed, that contains
> any existing registrations in the TLD being courted.
> 
> I.e., any registry participating in the testbed and hosting .FOO
> should be completely devoid of existing registrations in .FOO at the
> inception of the testbed period.  No pre-existing .FOO registrations
> will be grandfathered.

WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT ON THIS MATTER.  I will bet you $100 that Ken
Stubbs is in total agreement.  This isn't even on the map as far as CORE
is concerned.  There are *no* grandfathered registrations in any IAHC
names [unless you want to count the names that IODesign has registered
in its .web -- IODesign has indeed engaged in the practice you deplore,
but CORE has not.]

[...]
> Finally, would someone please produce the documents in which IANA
> blessed these various registries with the right to start registering
> domains within these TLDs?  I've asked a few times here, I believe,
> and haven't yet seen them.

IANA signed the gTLD-MoU.  However, that "blessed" a plan to create a
registry; it did not bless a registry per se (maybe that's just
semantics).  The legal documents that create CORE and all that all
contain bold disclaimers saying, basically: "this may not work". 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain