Re: Shared data base access by registries

["David R. Conrad" <davidc@apnic.net>]

Dave,

>	David, what you are describing for the neutral third party is a
>rather significant operation.  

I imagine it depends on how popular a particular domain is.  For
example, should .CAR be established, how many registrants would there
be? 

>It is an entirely reasonable and, in my
>opinion, desireable state of affairs to have such an operation.  However,
>if we are going to IMPOSE a requirement for such an entity, how shall it be
>established an run?  Who "owns" it; who "manages" it?  

The simplest (albeit perhaps not best) answer would be to have a
single entity modeled after DSMI (I think that is the right acronym --
the folk who handle 800/888 numbers in the US).  My personal
preference would be along the lines of industry consortia, e.g., the
car companies get together to form the NTP to handle .CAR, CIX may
want to handle a few domains for its members, etc.  The implication
here is that there would likely be additional requirements to become a
registered agent.

There are a variety of options and I would not wish to preclude any
particular option.  My interest here isn't to define a rigorous
regulatory regime for people who want to create new TLDs, but rather
to define a very simple underlying ground rule that will move
developments away from monopolistic control and towards free market
competition.  Perhaps a modification to my original statement would
make my position a little more understandable:

All domains must be sharABLE.

If the registrants are happy with the services they are getting and
the fees they are paying, I don't see a need for an elaborate sharing
system to be established.  If, however, registrants are getting
squeezed by the TLD admin, I strongly believe they should have the
ability to find someone else and not have to change their very
identity.  I imagine however the easiest approach to meet this
underlying ground rule would be to require all TLDs to be shared from
the start.

>How is the quality of its operation assured?

This is a contractual issue between the NTP and its agents.  Should
the NTP be unable to fulfill it's contractual requirements, it can be
sued for breach of contract.  Should the NTP fail completely, the
agents would simply find another NTP.

>	If we MANDATE such an entity, we must view its subjects as
>unwilling and essentially hostile participants.  

Perhaps phrasing it as "competitive" would me more diplomatic :-).
Yes, monopolies are generally unhappy when their monopoly status is
revoked.

>	To reiterate:  I also wonder whether the IAHC policies and
>procedures could not be formulated merely to "encourage" cooperative
>ventures, leaving the details of the creation and operation of the neutral
>third party to those forming the cooperative?

As mentioned previous, "easy" solution: monopolistic domains are
random, cooperative domains can be specified.

Regards,
-drc