Re: Comments on Karl's draft

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Karl Denninger allegedly said:
> 
[...]
> > 
> > Au contraire! All such details should be removed from the draft, for
> > several reasons: 1) it would essentially prevent someone in a
> > developing country from running an international registry, 2) there is
> > no such requirement for the ISO domains, 3) this is getting too far
> > towards specifying implementation, instead of just requirements, 4)
> > for monopoly TLDs, the free market can decide if service for that TLD
> > is adequate, and for shared TLDs there will be many nameservers for 
> > the TLD.
> 
> Hmmm... That does make sense.  What I was trying to do here was assuage the
> whole "someone will run a registry on a 14.4 dialup line" problem.
> 
> The bottom line, really, is that for most TLDs a T1 is more than sufficient
> (a SINGLE T1) -- even .ORG is probably reasonably-servable via a T1 at
> present.  DNS queries are really quite small.
> 
> However, you're wrong about one thing.  Nothing prevents a registry from
> satisfying this requirement by outsourcing the ACTUAL nameservers.  That is,
> if you're in a developing country, you run one nameserver and contract out
> on mutually agreeable terms to some other provider the other one.
>
> That satisfies the requirements (by *DEFINITION* you're multi-homed then :-)
> 

OK, how about: It would prevent someone in a developing country from 
running the DNS for a iTLD?

[...]
> > > 
> > > Do you really think $500/yr is enough to cover all the paperwork,
> > > all the details you listed in section "ISOC/IANA responsibilities",
> > > dispute resolution, lawyers, deletion, transfer of TLDs, etc.?
> > 
> > Let's see $500/yr * (say) 200 TLDs, that's $100,000 dollars per
> > year.  It's an old trick -- emasculate the regulating agency by
> > cutting funding.  In this case it would provide heavy pressure to 
> > create several thousand TLDs.
> 
> No.
> 
> If there is no significant traffic in TLDs then there is no siginificant
> expense.
> 
> There is NO REASON, other than fattening someone's wallet, to hand over
> money unless there is actual service being provided.

Given the number of allusions to legal action that you have made in 
the past, it seems like *you* have already made the case that there 
needs to be significant funds on hand for legal expenses, if nothing 
else.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE  6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E