Re: First come/First served

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> > I agree completely. However I want a set time period where other
> > companies can also apply for the contract (ie for TLDs). I would hope
> > for a announcement on the ISOC, IANA, IETF, and other related
> > organizations web pages, and probably a press release. Then maybe a 90
> > day period for open registrations for all TLDs. If one registry offers
> > 'better' services than all others, it gets the contract. Otherwise,
> > First Come First Serve to break all ties...
> 
> I have to agree and disagree. Obviously, the process has to be fair, and one
> has to meet the criteria set down by the IAHC.
> 
> 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.
> 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.
> 
> 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, 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.


I'd like to add that in the past, IANA was the appropriate place to
request new iTLDs.  This may have changed with the creation of the IAHC,
one might guess that some moratorium on TLD applications would have been
called though I have heard of none.  Now, there wasn't a defined
application process, but RFC 920 opened the way for ANYONE to request a
new TLD.  RFC 1591 seemed to indicate that no new TLD's would be likely
and now, it seems, IANA has caved to the pressure of AlterNIC and its
brethren and put in motion a process to start handing out TLD's.  So now
many more will want them...

But, though it may seem unfair, any request to IANA for a new TLD that
IANA didn't explicitly deny, but held on to envisioning a future process
for TLD disbursement have to be considered as valid applications for
those TLDs.  If FCFS is implemented, then they have to be considered to
have been there first.  Why should these people be penalized for being
first?

Vince Wolodkin