Re: Shared domain correctness/quality considerations (was Conflict resolution)

[David Collier-Brown <davecb@Canada.Sun.COM>]

George Michaelson wrote:
> 
> What do you see as the minimum delay period between a name request and
> lodgement that satisfies some kind of dither on fcfs to ensure legitemate
> owner concerns can be met?

	If we distinguish the Coordinating DataBase (CDB) 
from DNS servers which are updated from it, then I'd suggest
	CDB: < 1 second
	DNS: ~ 1 day

	I claim that anyone should be able to tell if there
is a reasonable probability of being able to register a name (DNS),
and that when actually registering it, the yes/no response
should be immediate (CDB).
	To make this even stronger, I claim that the same
immediate response should be possible to followup requests
if the name is taken and the customer wants to try another.

	I'll weaken it to admit that there is such a thing
as the speed of light and the slow of database, and say that
3 seconds as a lower bound and 10 as an upper might be a good
engineering target...

> Should there be a minimum hold time, and is
> the size of a pool of iTLD admins a function of that time?

	IFF you mean time that a name must remain invariant, I have no
	opinion.

	IFF you mean time it will be held while filling in additional
	required information, I suspect an hour **might** be reasonable.
	This will vary with the customer data required (eg, 	
	authentication) and the minimum technical ability of the
	registry to provide/create/enable it.   We need a better
	spec before I'll go further.
	
> 
> What do you see as the maximum time between peer admins of a given iTLD
> to re-sync data, such that the iTLD space is in some sense "dirty"? There
> definately will be some period of dirtyness in an async world...

	I see NS, RP and glue records being sent from the CDB
	to master dns servers within an hour of the registration
	completion, inter-server propagation on the order of a
	day and all other propagation as defined by TTLs.
	
> 
> What legal (or other) process enforces a party to honour  the requirement
> that all iTLD are run as a global common? Given some peoples mail so far,
> its reasonable to posit some set of bodies refusing to accept oversight
> since they claim its illegitemate in the first place.

	I do not wish to address this point here: I am
	of the opinion that it's a self-curing problem, but
	we should debate this in a different thread.
> 
> Who arbitrates over name removal and contention in any allocation where
> one party would be inclined to permit it for a given iTLD and another iTLD
> admin interprets policy as excluding the same name?

	The customer (end usr, owner of the domain, etc) tells
	the parties what to do with its name.  The parties to
	any dispute are NOT registries. They are customers.

	This does not consider the related question of whether
	to accept scatological terms. Someone needs to do a
	literature survey before rauising that question!
> 
> Apart from that, I think you've come closest to expressing goals here in
> an appropriate way: Its not about making money. Its about global win.
> 

	Thank you for raising these questions!  In my copious spare
time I'm collecting problems in hopes of overconstraining the
specification problem (and yes, I did say **over** constraining)

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario   | davecb@hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb