[ga-full] This should settle it.

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

From the declaration of George Strawn in one of the PGMedia v. NSI cases:

(NB: "Intemet" appears to be a transcription error, but I've left this
unmolested)

=== begin quote

27. During the early Intemet, the IANA had responsibility for
registration of first-and second-level domain names. As such, the
responsibility for assigning IP numbers and registenng domain names
was centralized with the IANA. The Defense Information Systems Agency
Network Information Center, a military contractor-operated facility,
actually performed the number assignment registrations.

=== end quote

He then goes on to describe how NSI's contract evolved. He
continues... (again, "LANA" would be "IANA" transcribed
incorrectly)

=== continue quote

36. The Cooperative Agreement named NSI as the NIS Manager. Though NSI
had not, at the point it began to implement the Agreement, been named
in an RFC as the Intemet Registry. However, the task of registering
second level domain names within five of the generic TLDs (or "gTLDs")
(".com", ".org", ".net", ".edu" and ".gov") was transferred to NSI
transferred from the GSI subcontract. Thus, NSI continued registration
services, but under the Cooperative Agreement. IANA continued its
function of overseeing the allocation of IP numbers and domain name
registrations.

38. In March 1994, RFC 1591 (copy annexed hereto as Exhibit H~- the
successor to RFC 1174 - was issued. RFC 1591, like RFC 1174, concerned
the functioning of the Internet Registry. However, while the earlier
RFC referred to the DNS only in passing (concentrating instead on the
allocation of IP numbers), the later RFC addressed in detail the
structure and operation ofthe DNS. RFC 1591 officially named NSI as
the Internet Registry ("IR"). That RFC also contemplated that it was
"extremely unlikely" that any new gTLDs would be created, and in any
event set forth the standard that "applications for new top-level
domains (for example country code domains) [were to be] handled by the
IR [NSI] with consultation with the IANA." See Exhibit H, ~ 2 and 3
(emphasis added). NSF understood that the LANA would authorize
substantive changes to the DNS only where those changes had consensus
support within the Internet community.

45. Under the Cooperative Agreement and RFC 1591, NSI had no
unilateral authority to register new gTLDs. NSI instead was required
to consult with the LANA regarding any applications for new TLDs.
PGMedia's request for the addition of hundreds of new gTLDs was
initially forwarded by NSI to the IANA. Subsequently, I was infommed
that by letter dated April 4, 1997, the IANA disavowed any authority
to make a decision in response to the request. NSI then referred the
question to NSF, which viewed IANA's disavowal as inconsistent with
RFC 1591's requirement that applications for new TLDs be disposed
of"with consultation with the IANA."

=== end quote.

William, here's your direct, spelled-out authority. Up until April 4, 1997,
IANA had the authority to add new TLDs. On that date, Postel
chose to (wisely) disavow any authority.

I believe, then, that we can place April 4, 1997 as the cutoff date
for any consideration of pioneer preference based on IANA's
actions.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html