Re: The user viewpoint

["Rick H. Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>]

On Dec 6,  2:27pm, John R Levine wrote:
> Subject: Re: The user viewpoint
> >> >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?
> >>
> >> The database manager has contracts with, and is probably jointly owned by,
> >> the registries it serves.
> >
> >Well, that would make it much eiser for the opperators to collude then.
>
> I'd better polish up my description of this and send it in.  In short,
> with a shared TLD, anyone who meets technical criteria can become a
> registry and has the option of buying a share in the database manager.

I think there might be a technical/preformance limit to the number of
regitraints that could work in a shared domain regestry. Threr might be the
case for more than one shared domain regestrie, it could be by geographical
boundry like the IP regestries are. At the very least haveing more
than one shared domain regestry would make things just that more robust.

>From the code I've writen to date, it is very difficult to have
TLDs shared amunst multipul shared-tld regestries. Any tld in a shared
domain regestry are exclusive to that regestry although they are shared
amunst the participitants of that domain regestry.


-Rick


-- 
Rick H. Wesson