Re: Thread 1: Sharing

[Aveek Datta <MoNoLiTH+@CMU.EDU>]

Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 24-Dec-96 Re: Thread 1:
Sharing by Christopher Ambler@hal.i 
> >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?

I'd like to hear the definition of existing registries as proposed by
thsoe who support prior use/FCFS for registries. What constitutes an
existing registry? I'm sure I can find a person who can easily falsely
or truely state they are running registries for a given TLD, even the
Internic ones.  If any such clause is inserted in for operational
registries, please do tell me, and I will find people who WILL abuse it.
And if I don't, someone will hear "ching ching!" in his or her head and
go for it him/herself.


 Aveek Datta           _ _ _   _                Email: aveek@andrew.cmu.edu
    _ __  ___ _ _  ___| (_) |_| |_     |W|   HomePage:         datta.ml.org
  _| '  \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | |  _| ' \ _  |E|    FreeDNS:           www.ml.org
 (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B|       Work:      www.itc.cmu.edu
   Please do not CC: mailing list messages/responses to me through email.