Re: Thread 1: Sharing

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Christopher Ambler allegedly said:
> 
[...]
> 
> >1)	FCFS recognition for EXISTING registries (again, ALL of them,
> >	IANA-recognized or not) in the order which they ACTUALLY went 
> >	constructively online.
> 
> While I am naturally in favour of this, there has been some dissention.
> Can anyone give a reason why this is unfair? Please do say that what
> the current registries are doing is 'rogue' or 'unrecognizable,' since
> that's an opinion that is contested. Why, in objective terms, would
> it be unfair to allow those registries who have demonstrated a working
> system to be given recognition in the selection of registrars?

Because it would discriminate against those who took the copiously 
offered advice of the IANA that they weren't really ready to process 
applications yet.  You have claimed that in private conversations 
Bill Manning said something might be construed as grudging permission 
to do something, not clear what.  However, there has never been a single 
*public* pronouncement to that effect, and there have been *many*
public pronouncements to the contrary -- you recall, perhaps, the 
line "In other words, don't count on it"?

So to accept the prior applications would discriminate against every 
single person who took IANA's public pronouncements to heart.  That 
would indeed be grossly unfair.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F