Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On 11/15/11 11:00 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Larry Masinter<[e-mail]>  wrote:
> >> Who should a third-party registrar list as the "change controller" ?
> >
> > If collisions don't matter then who cares?  Just add more collisions :)
> >
> > Alternatively, how about:
> >
> >     A third party should not claim to be the owner.
> >     The third party could specify an owner, but that should be considered
> >        informative.
> >     Anyone could make a claim on a registration that has no owner already.
> >     Anyone claiming to be the owner of a registration that already has an
> >        owner would have to submit their claim to<fill in the blank>  (IESG?),
> >        with appeals going to<fill in the blank>  (IAB?).
> >
> > But I think it's better to just not have to have an owner, nor any
> > change control -- it's easier and cheaper that way, particularly if it
> > is true that collisions in this namespace are of little consequence.

> I think I might buy into that. So the change controller and owner is
> IANA, right?

No, if you're going to weaken or even eliminate the owner/change controller
concept - and I think this is an idea that's worth exploring - you need to do
that, not put IANA in the middle of the process as some sort of substitute.

> Do we expect that IANA would keep track of who has asked it
> to register or modify any given entry?

That's how it works currently. In practice I don't believe there has ever been
a problem caused by someone registering something they shouldn't have, and
there definitely have been third party registrations.

				Ned