RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 08:45 AM 2/23/2000 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >If you are claiming that it IS in the history of the DNS, please 
> document it.
>
>As soon as you can take .com from NSI, we'll talk. Or you can try to

Evidently you are unaware that quite a few registry assignments have been 
changed by IANA over the years.

That includes moving com/net/org from its original registry of *8* years' 
standing (SRI).

So there is well-established precedent.


At 08:54 AM 2/23/2000 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > >Dave Said...
> > > >registry assert ownership  rights over the name, but that is not the
> > > >history of the DNS, nor is it an  appropriate model.
>
>It wasn't the statement that was a problem. It is the presumption, on your
>part, that they were a foregone conclusion. I also find this objectionable
>and not constructive.

Stating that something is (in)appropriate comments on the goodness of a 
thing -- that is, commenting upon its nature.  Stating that something is a 
forgone conclusion comments on its likelihood -- that is, whether it is 
likely to happen in the future..

Goodness and likelihood are entirely independent semantic constructs.  As a 
consequence, I'll ask you to identify what part of my statement stated or 
implied anything about likelihood.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA