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

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 09:43 AM 9/14/99 , Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Limit each prospective registry to a single TLD to start, and that set
>drops down to below 15. Most likely below 10.

Limit them to one each and a) they will have 1/3 the name choice as NSI, 
and b) they will appear to be even more fragile than NSI especially since 
they are so new and NSI so well-established.

In other words we need to be very careful that we do not orchestrate for 
failure.

The current gTLD registry has 3 viable names.  Giving less than that to a 
new registries puts them in a significantly weaker position, particularly 
with respect to making a comparative analysis.

> > The set of claims which pertain to work done that was IANA sponsored
> > involves 6 names only, the six developed by the IAHC/POC.
>
>Wrong. The set of claims includes all developed registries which also
>exist on IANA's list of applications, a list which was SOLICITED BY
>JON POSTEL. The "IAHC 7" (why do you say 6, I wonder?) were

The idea that the mere existence of a list of folks wanting to submit an 
application somehow creates an obligation is facinating, particularly since 
there is no language in that document which carries an IANA obligation, 
explicitly or implicitly.

I encourage you to find some legal basis for your position.  Absent that, 
please produce documentation which does constitute a clear statement by 
IANA that it was approving and otherwise participating in these other 
efforts.

To be counted it is necessary to do more than make a claim.  One must 
document it.

Absent such documentation, the obligation of this group is to design a 
reasonable and fair system that pertains to enhancements of the 
IANA-derived root.

Efforts outside of the root are irrelevant to the enhancement 
effort.  Those efforts were free to start and are free to continue.  The 
obligation of this group is to not interfere with their efforts, but does 
not require including them in our own.

(by the way, the nefarious reason I said 6 is that I can't count.  don't 
take it personally.)

> > All other work was done outside of IANA and is, therefore, unrelated to
>it.
>
>This is your fantasy. Reality bites.

Present documentation to this community which suffices to show IANA-derived 
obligation and it will be worth this community's consideration.

>If you don't agree with the argument, discount the motives of the opponent.
>At least one thing in this whole debate is transparent.

yup.  greed is almost always transparent.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>