RE: The user viewpoint

["Cutler, James" <james.cutler@exch.eds.com>]

The delegation of a branch of the name tree must be accompanied by
unambiguous
authority to manage that branch of the tree.  Multiple registry control
of one branch at
ANY level introduces ambiguities which affect business accountability.
It makes no
difference if we speak of TLD or 17LD. The business user cannot afford
the risk and 
uncertainty of dealing with multiple authorities for the same object.
Postel is absolutely
correct in tying registries and TLDs.

If the business arrangement with NSI for management of some TLDs is
faulty, then
that business arrangement must be corrected.  That is a completely
separate issue
from proper delegation and mangement of naming authority.

-
James R. Cutler
800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48007-7019
Voice: 810-265-7514    Fax: 810-265-3432
Internet: James.Cutler@eds.com
WWW:   <http://www.ltu.edu/dechtm/cutler/cutler.htm>
EDS*Link: <http://www.iscg.eds.com/cutler/>

>----------
>From: 	Vince Wolodkin
> <snip>
>A better plan, would be(as outlined in RFC 920, which was not obsoleted
>by RFC 1591) to allocate new TLDs based on need.  This could be expanded
>to be based on community needs.  Draft-postel explicitly ties together
>registries and TLDs.  This despite the trouble this type of relationship
>has produced with NSI.
>
>TLDs should be added based on community needs.  Registries should be
>granted in a seperate/unrelated process.  All registries should be
>allowed to register SLDs in any TLD(including .com, .net, and .org). 
>The entire business model of the current system is WRONG.
>
><snip>