- 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
> 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