Re: Shared domains

[John Leslie <john@jlc.net>]

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> All this talk of a fixed-cost meta-registry is high comedy.
> 
> If this is the way consensus intends it to go, then I hereby volunteer
> and request to be said meta-registry. This solution merely takes the
> exclusivity "problem" and abstracts it one layer. How do you solve the
> problem of the monopolistic meta-registry?

   What problem?

   The Meta-Registry merely accepts properly formatted requests from
Registries and executes them, generating updates for the root servers
(or possibly not even that -- the details haven't been hammered out yet).

   For this service, it charges a fixed fee to the Registries -- not
to the end customers. Ideally, the customers aren't even aware it
exists.

> What if others want to be this meta registry? Share meta-registry duties?

   I would expect a bidding process, to establish the amount of the fixed
fees. Others have suggested a non-profit corporation owned by the Registries
involved. Either way, it won't be attractive to profit-seekers.

> Back to square one.

   Hardly.

> This seems like a clear case of an attempt to solve a sticky business
> problem by applying blind technical procedure.

   To me, it seems like a clear case of attempting to solve a sticky
business problem by eliminating the problem, leaving only a blind technical
procedure to be designed.

   Seriously, what makes the monopoly-registry problem intractable is
the person-to-person problems, where human judgment is required. If we
eliminate the customer contact, the Registry : Meta-Registry interface
becomes "only" a technical problem.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>