W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2005

RE: draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.txt

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:40:35 -0800
To: "'Charles Lindsey'" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>, "'John Cowan'" <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-id: <0ICD00ILXNVNNL@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

> But what does one do in the case of a 'foobar' scheme that was Never used

> anywhere and was only ever registered for 'land grabbing' purposes? Now  
> comes the time when you want to institute a genuine 'foobar' scheme, and  
> let us suppose there are excellent reasons why 'foobar' is the proper name

> for it. So you need either to be able to deregister the old (bogus)  
> foobar, or else to demote it to some status which does not preclude the  
> new one going ahead. IOW, there needs to be some mechanism for rectifying

> past "mistakes".
> 
> The new draft does not address this issue. It should.

Section 5.3, Change Control, is where this is addressed. It says:

# Provisional registrations may be updated by the original registrant
# or anyone designated by them. In addition, the IESG may reassign
responsibility
# for a provisional registration scheme. 

If 'foobar' is provisionally registered, the IESG may reassign
responsibility
to someone else with a 'foobar' scheme. I don't see any reason to encourage
or call out this particular situation, but reassignment is possible.

So, that's the mechanism. I think it's adequate for the purpose of handling
a situation that we hope will never occur, and I don't know what else
needs to be said.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 18:40:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC