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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 11:39 AM 3/30/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

What was clearly missed from my posting is the following:

"Hopefully, we can use what we can find consensus on, and move on."

Or phrased another way:

"Hopefully, we can use what we can find consensus on, and move on."

Does this help, Kent?

Roberto - Kent's response is another example of the answer to your question 
"Why?" It doesn't seem to matter, some people are adamantly opposed to 
finding consensus.

>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

--
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