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

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

Dave, you can't have it both ways. Either IANA sanctioned activity
is canon or it is not. Either what they did with the IAHC has the
same position as their requesting NIC templates prior to entry or
it doesn't. These facts are not in dispute. THESE FACTS - let's
leave other facts that ARE in dispute out of it.

So, I reiterate - we have, at most, 5 or so companies that created
infrastructure based upon the actions of IANA. In these cases, 
assurances were made that were subsequently broken.

Some would argue that IANA's authority is nil. I would argue
that it's not a question of authority, it's a question of
process. At the time, IANA had the de-facto stewardship, and
all parties acted on good faith. Forget about authority.

What this gives us is a small handful of pioneers who are
knowledgeable, have infrastructure, and who are presumably
ready to be part of the testbed.

Fill the rest with some of the proposed social domains (perhaps
the .sucks and the .naa proposals) and maybe even add .eu in
the testbed as well.

The point being, the composition of the testbed, absent any
other evidence, seems clear. There is no need to exclude any
company/entity that has seriously taken steps to date. Indeed,
there's even room for some that haven't.

-- 
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web