Re: The user viewpoint

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Rick H. Wesson allegedly said:
> 
> On Dec 5,  2:35pm, John R Levine wrote:
> > Subject: Re: The user viewpoint
> > > Multiple registry control of one branch at ANY level introduces
> > > ambiguities which affect business accountability.
> >
> > People seem to be able to live with the way that 800/888 numbers are
> > allocated, with a small neutral database manager holding the shared
> > data submitted by all of the IXCs who actually provide the service.
> >
> > That's the model I believe that most of us fans of shared iTLDs are
> > advocating.  It is if anything less risky than the unshared model
> > since it lessens the possibility that a registry will unilaterally
> > change the rules, as Carl Oppedahl reminds us the Internic does.
> 
> And what is to kep the opperator of the shared regestry from doing the
> same. Wakeing up one day and changeing the rules, like $50 per allocation
> insted of $1?

If you check the draft I wrote, which proposes a somewhat different
model than John is describing, the "shared database" is actually in
the nameserver that each registry runs.  One of them is the master DNS
server, but that is a (relatively) trivial configuration change, such
that, if required, *any* of the shared registries could take over that
duty.  Furthermore, they are required by the registry license to be
prepared to take over that duty if the current master fails.  

There is essentially no cost difference between running the master DNS
server and a secondary server for the domain, so the registry that is
running the master doesn't incur any significant cost from it. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F