Re: The user viewpoint

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

On Dec 6,  3:33pm, Simon Higgs wrote:
> Subject: Re: The user viewpoint
> 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.
>

The origional charter of the TLD shouldn't specify that it be shared.
In any event the entity that has been deligated authority over a
iTLD might want to mkae it shared at a later date. The senerio that I
envision is that shared-tld regestries charge for database updates, while
the seller of the TLD is responsible for the billing policy of whatever
domain allocation they make.

<fiction>
  sTLD-R = Shared TLD Regestry
     (this is so I never have to spell Regestry again ;-)


.COM is shared, NSI sells a SLD in .COM, NSI charges $50 per year
for the life of the SLD. Every time that SLD is updated NSI pays
the sTLD-R  $10 for the update. This would be true for
any update. If this were true what is keeping the individual that
is a contact for the SLD from coming directly to the sTLD-R, and
updateing the contact record for a fee? It could get confuseing....

</fiction>

Anyone with a better idea of show a sTLD-R should opperate?

-Rick

-- 
Rick H. Wesson