Re: Specific Questions

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

Christopher Ambler writes:
> >	How shall sufficient granularity be ensured, given the limited
> >number of slots available?
> 
> Who says there's a limited number of slots available? Again, here is an
> IAHC member treating the 19Dec draft as gospel!

It isn't gospel, but obviously the IAHC wouldn't have written it that
way did if there wasn't a belief that there were strong reasons for
taking the approach. After all, if the IAHC felt that some other
approach was preferable, the document would have reflected that. I
assume this is obvious.

> >	If not shared, how shall stability for the end-users be assured in
> >the face of problems with the registrar (misbehavior or going out of
> >business)?
> 
> Very good point, one which has changed my mind on the sharing issue, as
> long as such sharing is consistant amongst ALL registrants, including
> existing ones. My draft takes this into account.

The existing proposal is consistant. As has been repeatedly noted, not
all of the situation is within the direct control of the IAHC. The
mere fact that certain extant companies doing registration are not
going to be sharing immediately does not mean that it is in the
interests of the users of the DNS that the IAHC permit other
non-shared registration mechanisms. If non-shared TLDs are bad, then
the way to fix the situation is obviously not to create new ones, but
to only create shared TLDs and to attempt to get the extant TLDs to
eventually be shared as well.

I understand that you do not feel this will allow new registrars to
make as much money as existing companies in the registration business,
but this cannot be our primary concern, which must remain focused on
the general needs of the users of the DNS.


Perry
Speaking for myself, and not for the IAHC in an official capacity.