Re: Limiting the number of registrars and gTLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Dave Crocker allegedly said:
> 
> At 12:08 PM -0800 12/22/96, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >  I agree with Chris's statment here.  I think that if there are reasons
> >to limit the number, than those reasons must be discussed, established,

[...]

> The answer is that we design the best scheme we think
> appropriate for the long term, but we deploy it slowly, in this case
> limiting the number of gTLDs and the number of registrars, and then we
> watch how things go.  Increases occur as experience is gained.  Changes
> occur as experience is gained.  This, I'm afraid, is the only responsible
> approach.
> 
> 	Anything else would be irresponsible.  To assume that things will
> work perfectly from the start is not reasonable.  To assume that it is easy
> to change large numbers of operations quickly is not reasonable.  The
> larger the number of players, the longer it takes to make changes.  It's
> that simple.

In fact, by this standard, the IAHC draft is almost incredibly 
aggressive.

However, I would like to express an opinion here:  :-)

What saves the current draft from being insanely aggressive is this 
simple fact -- the correct functioning of DNS is critical to the 
operation of the net as a whole, but the correct and efficient 
operation of registrars is not.  As long as DNS functions correctly a 
registrar can completely screw up and not affect the net at all.  In 
fact, there can be a wide range of service level in the registrar 
part of the business, and the net will not be affected at all.

-- 
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