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

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

>2) It rewards people for acting outside the process and going off on their
own
>without any regard for the process

Fact: IANA told prospective registries to go online and show them
"running code."

Fact: IANA told CORE to go online pending addition to the root (or at
least signed their document that intimated that this would happen).

Fact (as you say, and I'll give you for the sake of argument): IANA had
no authority to do any of that

Where, from these facts, do you find that the prospective registries went,
as you say, "off on their own?" They went off based on the direction of
IANA, authority notwithstanding.

Based on this, these companies have been harmed.

Fact: ICANN is now, for all intents and purposes, IANA.

I think the answer here is clear.

>By giving them no advanced standing they have to qualify on their merits
and
>their merits alone.   This ensures that the best choices are made, and not
that
>someone who decided to go off on their own gets a shot above someone with a
>bettter proposal simply because they refused to wait and get an official
>sanction for their activity.

If the criteria are objective, and the prospective registries meet or
exceed the criteria, then there is no question of "better" or "worse,"
there's just a question of "qualified based on the criteria." By your
logic, are the testbed registrars "better" than all those that have
followed? Of course not.

So the question is, should pioneer registries be given first opportunity
to qualify based on objective criteria? I say the answer is yes.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web