Re: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 07:37 AM 7/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 12:31:53AM -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> > At 05:18 PM 7/9/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >
> > > > from http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
> > > >
> > > >         While there is much discussion of a process for establishing
> > > >         new registries and new top level domains taking place, no
> > > >         conclusions have been reached as yet.
> > > >
> > > >         Request sent to the IANA for a new top level domain will be
> > > >         filed with the many other requests.  There is some considerable
> > > >         possibility that this particular request will not be granted
> > > >         (in simple words -- don't plan on it).
> > >
> > >Spot on. There is some considerably possibility that this particular 
> request
> > >will not be granted. As such, Jon acknowledged that there were, in
> > >fact, requests (and that they were solicited).
> > >
> > >To date, none of them have been approved nor rejected. They are, in
> > >a word, STILL PENDING.
> > >
> > >Thank you for pointing this out, you've actually been helpful.
> >
> > QED.
> >
> > And my original point is that there is a legally binding contractual
> > obligation, via the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement" and "Contract Between
> > ICANN and the United States Government for Performance of the IANA
> > Function", for ICANN to receive and evaluate these requests.
>
>My guess as to ICANN's evaluation:

Everyone is guessing. Why not let ICANN say something for a change?

>Those requests are a meaningless hodgepodge that were made with an
>explicit admonition that they should not be planned on.  The "don't plan
>on it" clause is in fact a straightforward denial of any "pioneer
>preference", and in fact, the straightforward interpretation of that
>clause is "there is no point in making an application now", and many
>people read it that way when it was publicized.

That's one misinformed opinion, and contrary to conversations I've had with 
IANA. Not one application has been denied. Not one has been approved 
either. They were submitted to the IAHC and ignored.

Please show documentary evidence of the specific application denials to 
back up your fictitious claim.

>The fact that some fools actually DID make plans based on those
>requests, dispite the clear COMMAND not to, is not our problem,

The instructions from IANA were explicit. SET UP AND RUN A REGISTRY. Legal 
disclaimers, of the type between registry and consumer, were provided by 
IANA to all prospective registries to limit their liability in following 
IANA's instructions. Criteria for evaluation were provided by IANA, which 
included operational readiness. There were even meetings at IANA to 
encourage and find consensus for "draft Postel". IANA did just about 
everything to encourage the new registries except finance AlterNIC.

Jon Postel then explicitly told the IAHC "Do what the "postel draft" says 
to do.". He was ignored.
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00527.html

>and it
>should not prejudice applications from organizations that read the
>clause with its obvious interpretation.

So you are advocating that it's OK to prejudice the pioneer work, in spite 
of clear instructions to the contrary?

If anyone on the list wonders why the past is once again being rehashed, 
it's simple. History will repeat itself over and over again until the 
mistakes of the past are rectified.


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
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