RE: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 14-Sep-99 Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 04:54 AM 9/14/99 , A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>>Practically, there needs to be two processes - one for
>>those TLDs for which there is some form of pre-existing
>>claim, and the other for those for which there is none.
> 
> The set of potential gTLD names for which someone, somewhere has made some 
> sort of claim is gigantic.  Large enough to treat as infinite.
> 
> The set of claims which pertain to work done that was IANA sponsored 
> involves 6 names only, the six developed by the IAHC/POC.  Offhand I would 
> predict that the speicific choice of names is not a criticial point to the 
> POC.  (The choice has incorrectly been attributed to CORE; however the 6 
> names were selected before CORE was formed.)
> 
> All other work was done outside of IANA and is, therefore, unrelated to it.

The IANA related work you cite is just as irrelevent, as it is perfectly clear
they were operating OUTSIDE their mandate and authority, making that effort
every bit as legitimate/illegitmate as any other effort.

 
> Those trying to corner the market on one or another name will contest this 
> statement, of course.  And creating that distracting debate is the reason 
> we were treated to the suggestion that pre-existing claims are an issue, of 
> course.
> 
> Focusing on registry selection is a more appropriate -- and likely to be a 
> vastly more productive -- line of discussion for the group.
> 

It would help if CORE supporters would stop trying to use this argument to
bolster their claim and then deny any claims from anyone else.

The argument is weak and without merit.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
 
Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list!
http://www.dnspolicy.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss
<IDNO MEMBER> http://www.idno.org