Re: [ga] Older Registrations

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

William Walsh wrote:
>
>I will only point out that the IAHC effort HAS to give the impression 
that IANA
>had the authority, even if it didn't, because all of their work, and 
all of the
>promises they made to the CORE registrars, were predicated on this self
-assumed
>"authority."
>
>Whats funny is that both the self-proclaimed registries and CORE both 
need to
>argue that IANA had an authority it didn't have, and for which there 
exists no
>documentation for it having, in order try and bolster their respective 
claims. 
>It really does seem they have more in common than the CORE supporters 
want to
>admit.
>
>But both claims fall far short of being accurate.
>


Since we are into "can-of-worms-opening" mood, let's open this one as 
well.

When I first joined this process, I have been told (and I somewhat 
believed) that IANA had the authority to make changes to the A-root.

My "technical" half failed to understand why if IANA had the power, the 
A-root was hosted somewhere else, but my "political" half suggested not 
to investigate further.
So I "grew up" with the convincement that, for ordinary matters (like 
addition of unchallenged ccTLDs), IANA was doing the job, but if some 
really itchy wuestion was going to ever come up, the "pitch-hitter" 
would have eventually come at-bat.
Among the CORE Members, I was one of the least surprised by the issue of
 the "Green Paper". The record of one of my interventions at the CORE GA
 in Washington, D.C., on this subject (w/o agreement with USG, no cigar)
 should be sowhere in the minutes. This few hours before the Green 
Paper.

So much for history.
Now to present times.
The ICANN BoD is likely to decide on this matter.
Will they look back at history and take into account priority of 
applications? Maybe, but this is very unlikely to be the leading 
argument.
What value has an E-Mail message "reserving" one or onehundred gTLDs, is
 something that will be evaluated by lawyers. What I would look at, if I
 were ICANN, is the solidity of the enterprise, the seriousness of the 
business, the likelihood of providing a good service to the customers, 
and these kind of things that have little to do with the debate going 
on.

ICANN has, IMHO, one big task (among others, of course): to improve the 
management of the DNS. In spite of the criticism, NSi has set a 
standard. The next delegated gTLD (if we will ever have a *real* one) 
*cannot* fall short of this standard.
Will ICANN choose chronology rather than reliability? I seriously doubt.
 

Regards
Roberto
(willing to take bets)
--
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