Re: Shared domains

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

My concept of a meta-registry is a communal operation in terms of
policies, but letting contracts out to run the meta-registry where you
need high-availability 24x7 manned facilities.

Policy could be hashed out in lists such as this mediated by a committee
to be formed by the IAHC.  Kind of like a <DOMAIN-POLICY-LIST> that
works(we hope!)

In my opinion the company that operates the meta-registry facilities
would have absolutely NO policy input.  They would, of course, need to
be involved in any major system changes.  What I am really shooting for
is what we could have had had NSF better managed the NSI contract.  As I
see it NSI manages NSF.

Exclusive registries don't remove the monopolistic registry they just
make more of them.  Unless of course you are willing to allow the .web
registry policies to be set by a committee you don't control???

Vince Wolodkin

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 if others want to be
> this meta registry? Share meta-registry duties?
> 
> Back to square one.
> 
> This seems like a clear case of an attempt to solve a sticky business problem
> by applying blind technical procedure. It's apples and oranges. No, strike
> that, apples and oranges are at least both fruit. It's apples and goats.
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.