Re: registries and lotteries

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 3:26 PM -0800 12/20/96, Bryant Durrell wrote:

> Christopher Ambler writes:
> > >    Noting its concern for managing change to a critical Internet
> > >    resource, IAHC believes that the number of additional Registrars
> > >    authorized in the next year should be limited to between twenty and
> > >    thirty, with additional Registrars added at the rate of twenty to
> > >    thirty per year, subject to an annual review of the efficient
> > >    functioning of the system.
> >
> > This is clearly wrong. Not only are you creating an artificial barrier to
> > entry, but you're going to be excluding many companies that have
>been working
> > on this process since day one by a roll of the dice. Pointing out that they
> > can be in the lottery the next year, or that the limit will be removed once
> > NSI shares is irrelivant, as the first wave will have the market foothold.
> >
> > Remove the lottery entirely, limit based solely on technical and business
> > ability, and we'll go from there.
>
> I am tempted to recommend grandfathering the people who've been working
> on this since Day One and having a lottery for the remaining spots,
> which I think would address your objections?  I think, though, that
> there might be some controversy as to the definition of "working."
>
> I will stake out one end of the question by proposing that any
> organization which can show proof of work done on a registry, can show
> that they meet the technical requirements, and has not accepted money
> for registering a domain name be grandfathered.
>

My hero! I will second this motion.

:-)


Simon

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