Re: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:01:12AM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> 
> http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html
> 
> I would recommend EVERYONE on the GA mailing list take a look at this 
> document from Jon Postel of IANA. This is the original "new TLD plan", and 
> documents many things -

It says:

    The NEWDOM, IETF, and related mailing lists are encouraged to read,
    and comment, on this material.  Presuming a consensus can be found
    within these audiences, the distribution of this memorandum should
    be expanded to include general commentary from the Internet
    community.

That is, it documents nothing but early thoughts on how things *might* be 
done, and EXPLICITLY states that the result will need to be brought 
before the "Internet community" before it can be ratified.

At the bottom it says:

    Postel Expires 30-Sep-96

That date is long past.

[...]
> There are also many trivia items in this document - the infamous check 
> (6.4.4), timetable for introducing new TLDs (6.9.4), the original ad hoc 
> committee (5.5), introducing new registries for iTLDs and additional iTLDs 
> names (1.6), etc. So now when you hear someone say they followed the 
> guidelines laid out by IANA, this is one of the documents they are 
> referring to.

Such people would be very foolish to follow guidelines that had never 
been ratified.

[...]

> FYI - this is what Dave Crocker is referring to as the "rogue effort".

If you mean people trying to spin gold out of an extremely rough,
unofficial, unratified draft, yes.  

If you mean the rough, unofficial, unratified draft itself, no.  The
draft itself is part of a very long and winding process -- a rejected
part.  For reference, here's a relevant section of the boilerplate of 
all Internet Drafts:

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
    months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
    at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as
    reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

So, while Jon's draft is an interesting window into the history of all
this debate, it has no standing whatsoever as a basis for action on the
part of anyone. 

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