Subject: [salud] Definition of "first owner"

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:54:58 -0500 (EST)

(as an individual)

In a previous message:

> 5b) If an entity is the first registrant of a domain name
>     <provider-id>, it owns all <provider>s with that <provider-id> and
>     all <date>s preceding when it registered the domain name.

Should we change "first registrant" to "first registered owner on or
after 2013-01-01"?

For example:  Company X registers example.com from 2010-01-01 to
2011-12-31, and then allows the registration to lapse.  Company Y then
registers example.com from 2014-01-01 onward.  Under the rule in the
previous message, Company Y has to use "example.com(14)" as a
<provider>.  But I think it would be sensible to allow Company Y to
use "example.com" as well, because nobody owned "example.com" from
2013-01-01 to 2013-12-31.  (Company X can still use
"example.com(10)"!)

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:48:05 -0500

> 2013-01-01 to 2013-12-31.  (Company X can still use

I don't like the conclusion of that use case. IMO a use without a date 
should apply to Company X's definition, not company Y. Even though 
nobody could have minted an alert urn back in 2011, after the fact 
nobody will remember that date.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:20:15 +0100

Dale,

For me, this is quite confusing and may lead to failures when people
implement it. "Leaving out the date" is a a critical issue anyway and
I think if we want to get it approved by the URNBIS we should use it
only in cases where there is no room for confusion and have rules
which are clear and almost obvious.  I would not try to leave out the
date in cases like this.

Thank you
Laura

2013/2/14 Dale R. Worley <[email-masked]>:
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:27:04 -0500 (EST)

(as an individual)

> From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
> 
> In a previous message:
> 

Nobody else likes this idea, so let's not make this change.

Dale