Unofficial but common URI schemes

In a previous meeting I believe we agreed that we should encourage third-party
registrations of URI schemes that the owners didn't register.   And indeed we
updated the language (e.g. around security considerations) to clarify how to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme lists 71 unregistered URI schemes in
the "Unofficial but common URI schemes".   So it seems the right thing to do is
to try to follow the 4395bis process for all 71 of them.

Not doing so would mean, IMO, we'd basically be leaving Wikipedia to be the
unofficial registry that people will actually use (and check for uniqueness when
submitting registrations) instead of the IANA registry.

I expect we'd want them all to be provisional (not permanent), and that we don't
want a mailing list review of all 71 of them.

Does this sound reasonable?   Just want to check before submitting 71 IANA
requests for third-party registrations.

-Dave