- From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:57:41 -0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:54:21 -0600, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 13:47 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote: >> They clearly are related, but they are different requirements and >> distinct mechanisms for coping with them can be elaborated. > > Maybe I'm just not very creative, but I don't see how. > > An example of how to address the land-grab problem without > allowing duplicates would make your point much easier > for me to see. What you need is a mechanism for _removing_ registrations from the registry (what does the present draft say about that?). Otherwise none of the current duplicates could _ever_ proceed to permanent. One you have a removal mechanism, then you also need some mechanism for forced removal, under some IESG procedure, for use as a last resort against the land grabbers and the defunct schemes that "seemed like a good idea at the time", but never made it into actual use. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 11:27:59 UTC