<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Discussion draft on unique, authoritative root
- To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
- Subject: Re: [council] Discussion draft on unique, authoritative root
- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:50:25 +0200
- Cc: <brian@bwmc.demon.co.uk>, <council@dnso.org>, <Bridget.Cosgrave@etsi.fr>, <Livia.Rosu@etsi.fr>, <lynn@icann.org>, <Fabio.Bigi@itu.int>, <klensin@jck.com>, <PSO-PC@list.etsi.fr>, <gerry.lawrence@marconi.com>, <smb@research.att.com>, <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, <djweitzner@w3.org>, <ph@w3.org>
- In-Reply-To: <sb13091e.054@gwia201.syr.edu>
- Sender: owner-council@dnso.org
At 02:27 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>I see in your "Discussion Draft" and your message
>several references to "established policy."
>Unfortunately, there is no "established policy" for the problems we are
>considering. New.net did not
>exist when the White Paper was drafted. Nor did
>the possibility of supporting internationalized domain
>names through alternate roots. And of course ICANN's
>Board had not yet selected a TLD that conflicted with
>one claimed by an alternate registry.
there is of course nothing new in new.net. The Ambler .web case raised the
same issue as new.net did very much earlier; the main difference is the
amount of money poured into it.
The established policy is the policy that has been followed so far.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|