Re: Notes (fwd)

[John Leslie <john@jlc.net>]

Michael Dillon wrote:
> 
> Because the newdom list was shut down the same day as the meeting, these
> minutes never made it to the public list.

   I believe Bill Manning correctly characterized these as "notes," not
"minutes".

> I should note that even though my email address is listed below, I was not
> in attendance at the meeting. Therefore these minutes do not include a
> list of the participants.

   I have no reason to believe that any "minutes" exist. Minutes would
show a time and place and a list of participants. The distinction is
important, because a corporate body like IANA can only act through its
minutes.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
> To: john@jlc.net,...

   My name appears because I responded to Bill Manning's offer to supply
"minutes" of the meeting. I hasten to point out I was not present either;
and I see no reason to believe the "To:" list bears any relationship to
those present.

> Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, iana@iana.org
> Subject: Notes (fwd)
> 
>> Hi,
>> 	Thanks for coming by yesterday.  Here are my notes of the
>> 	discussions:
>>
>> 	There are participants in the room that have set up infrastructure
>> 	and turned in requests to the IANA for new top-level domains.
>> 	Everyone agrees that working within the system  preserves the
>> 	value of a global internet as a resource...

   Bill lists things that the "participants" agreed upon. There are very
few things he wrote that commit himself (least of all the IANA) to
anything at all. I quote the few:

>> 	First, it was recommended that a set of criteria be established that
>> 	each ad-hoc committee may utilize to evaluate applications.  We think
>> 	that these criteria should include, at a minimum, these items:
>> 
>> 		Prior Use - Has the requestor made good faith efforts
>> 			to establish working service?  This is almost
>> 			identical to the current requirement to have
>> 			working nameservers.
>> 
>> 		Buisness Viability - The requestor should be willing to
>> 			assure the committee that they have sufficent resources
>> 			to manage the domain for the delegation period.
>> 
>> 		Agree to Terms and Conditions - The requestor should be willing
>> 			to agree to operational terms and conditions set forth
>> 			by the IANA.
>> 
>> 		Operational Resources - the requestor must have the ability
>> 			to ensure reasonable stability for the duration
>> 			of the delegation period.

   Please note these are criteria an ad-hoc committee "may utilize" and
the list is not intended to be inclusive.

>> 	It was agreed that a fee of 2% per-registration is acceptable.
>> 	The definition of "per-registration" is unique entry in the second
>>	level zone files.  

   That's it, folks. Anything somebody else remembers of the meeting
_cannot_ be an action of the IANA. Could we _please_ move on to other
issues?

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>