Re: Conflict resolution?

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Rick H. Wesson wrote:
> 
> On Nov 19, 12:53pm, David R. Conrad wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Conflict resolution? 
> > The arguments against the shared-tld proposals seem to fall into 2
> > categories:
> >
> > a) they don't know how it can be done
> 
> It can be done just no one wants to put forth the efforts to build the project
> and if onw was built it would have to be funded some how.
> 
> > b) they wouldn't be able to make money
> 
> A shared regestry would be vastly more complex than a regular domain
> allocator. The shared regestry would have all the applications funneled
> into it. It would have to be staffed 24x7 and have a sizeable amount
> of network resources (storage, cpu, badwith)
> 

Just a suggestion.  Even though no-one seems to like NSI, I believe that
under their current contract they could be used to serve the purpose of
the meta-registry.  The keeper of the shared database.

> > Argument a) can be answered by simply pointing at the way the 800
> > numbers are handled in the US, that is, a neutral third party operates
> > a "mutual exclusion service" handling requests FCFS via some
> > (presumably) highly automated procedure.
> 
> So would it still cost the end user to obtain a nmae?
> 

As I have recommended before, all transactions would then be charged
for.  Creation of a new name would carry a charge.  Modifications and
deletions and assignments would carry charges.  In this way, you
wouldn't be tied to one registry.  Registry operators would have to work
to serve you ALL the time.  You wouldn't get trapped with a registry
just because you were using a name in their TLD.

A small yearly fee could still be charged per domain name for the
operation of the meta-registry or more likely, the meta-registry would
charge registries a fee per transaction itself.  Registries could settle
transactions with the meta-registry once a month.  

This makes a lot more sense than a free-for-all of TLD's, each with
their own monopolizing owner.  The IAHC should mandate that all new
iTLDs be shared, and while they can take advantage of existing contracts
get NSI to act as the meta-registry.  Eventually, .com and .net should
be shared also.  Probably sooner than later.

Vince Wolodkin