Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 06:03 PM 3/15/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>There are a very small handful of companies (less than 5) that put together
>registries back in the days of Postel I and Postel II, after being told (on
>public mailing lists by Postal and Manning themselves) that the Postel II
>draft was to be an RFC. This was contemporary with IANA, in the form

For those unfamiliar with the relevant procedures:

1.  An RFC is not a "standard" unless it is made one, through processes 
that are separate from the act of publication; and

2.  Stating an intent to publish something is a long way from making it a 
standard.


>These are facts, and nobody disputes them. The postings by Postel and

The range of statements that have been made about supposed 'permission' 
given for the rogue activities includes many statements that are false.


>I would also make a position for CORE as a registry, as they are a
>business entity that spent considerable money to create their registry

More importantly, CORE was created out of a formal IANA activity -- IANA 
initiated and IANA endorsed -- and provided with oversight by POC.

Not quite the same as the rogue efforts by others.


>You have consensus for 6-10 new TLDs. Call it 10, then. Take
>the 5 pioneers and add 5 more to be determined. Make all of them

Take the 5 rogue "pioneers" and ignore them.

Then treat all potential registry administrators equally.  The rogue folk 
should consider themselves lucky not to be automatically excluded from 
consideration.

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