Re: Conflict resolution?

[George Michaelson <ggm@connect.com.au>]

  > > Initially, I would say because IANA accepted applications for this,
  >
  > IANA did not accept applications for iTLD registries.
  
  Nice fantasy. Wrong answer. At least 2 new TLDs (for Jersey & Guernsey)
  have been processed and placed into the root since the original newdom
  list started.
  
This is jesuitical. Its apples and goats as regards the process in hand. 

Do you wish that legitemate ISO 2-letter countries and bodies which can
demonstrate a concrete authority to act for that countrycode-owner should
have their delegation put on hold pending a process which relates to
i(nternational)TLD and not n(ational) 2-letter TLD?  Sure, the statement
above is factually incorrect. In the context of iTLD, what difference does
it make?

What reasons are there for putting the ISO 2-letter-process on ICE because the
non-ISO process has hit a legal minefield?

Sure, some 2-letter codes are served by parties out to make a buck, but if
they can demonstrate that a plausible government agency wants them to take
delegation for their code, thats an entirely different ballgame to people
staking claims to arbitrary charstrings under the root. In fact, by definition
the "arbitrary" strings EXCLUDE 2 LETTER CODES in the process as documented.

Now if more than 26**2 countries ever exist and the ISO-3 letter forms become
important, things get interesting. Lets hope the US states don't ever re-call
the electoral college and formally split the union...

-George

--
George Michaelson         |  connect.com.au pty/ltd
Email: ggm@connect.com.au |  c/o AAPT,
Phone: +61 7 3834 9976    |  level 8, the Riverside Centre,
  Fax: +61 7 3834 9908    |  123 Eagle St, Brisbane QLD 4000