Re: The user viewpoint

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 11:45 AM -0800 12/6/96, Rick H. Wesson wrote:

> 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.
>

That's easily solved within the charter of each TLD. It should specify
who can perform registration services for that TLD. That becomes the
basis for your overall registry model. That way any registry can be
delegated any individual TLD. Plus it's scalable, because it's a viable
way of creating more competition for the popular TLDs without
obligating the smaller, more focused registries to carry more TLDs than
they want to.


Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.