Re: First come/First served

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Christopher Ambler allegedly said:
> 
[...]
> But you also have the problem that IANA took applications under their draft
> proposal and made many promises that they have handed off to the IAHC.

This is quite misleading, according to my understanding.  The IANA 
didn't have a draft, Jon Postel as an individual had a draft, and any 
applications accepted were done so with the explicit understanding 
that action taken on them, if any, would be conditional upon policies 
that were not yet decided.  It is my impression that the IANA was as
careful as it could be to *avoid* making any promises.  If you have 
any evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.

In my opinion, the IHAC has no moral, legal, or ethical obligation to 
consider the applications people pushed upon the IANA as anything 
other than information concerning the desires of certain parties.

> Whether the IAHC honours these promises or not is up to them, of course, but
> you do have business entities (and I'll admit, we're one) that have had
> applications in to IANA for quite some time when they were in charge. To throw> them out and consider everything that has passed to be null and void would
> be reckless at best.

Chris, I seriously respect your position.  But I believe that the 
IAHC *must* ignore prior applications.  There was *no* formal 
application process in place, and to give priority to informal 
applications discriminates against those who patiently waited for the 
issues to be resolved. 

> I would propose a policy statement such that if an application were submitted
> to IANA, and the applicant meets the criteria set down by IAHC for running
> a registry, that they are given priority for the iTLD as applied to IANA. To
> do otherwise would be saying that IANA had no authority at the time,

That doesn't follow.  You gave something you called an application to 
somebody from IANA, and they said, in effect, "when we decide what to 
do we may look at your document."

> and if
> that's the case, how did they have authority to enter into the agreement with
> ISOC to form the IAHC? Hot potato indeed.
> 
> I will leave the issues of prior use alone for now, as that's a whole different
> can of worms.
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.
> 


-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE  6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E