Re: An alternative to the "lottery"

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent,

  I think this is a workable compermise.  Perry, Dave, other IAHC
members, what do you say?  One proviso I would add is that spicific
standards be included in the draft and assistance to meet those 
standards pe provided by CORE, and that assistance paid for
by those registries on a negotiated fee basis.  Also that
the $20k fee be reduced to a negotiated fee or a set lower
fee baised on the size of the org or company applying for 
acceptaance.

Regards,
One of the Four Hoursman...

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> It occured to me that there might be a way to handle the lottery
> issue.  The stated goal of the lottery is to maintain the stability,
> integrity, and reliability of net, a goal I don't think any reasonable
> person could disagree with -- we all want stability, integrity, and
> reliability.
> 
> So, just let things be driven by measures of stability, integrity, and
> reliability.  In other words, reword the draft to emphasize that *all*
> qualified applicants will be accepted essentially immediately.
> However, they will brought online only at a rate that allows continued
> stability, integrity, and reliability.  That is, if, by some objective
> criteria the current set of registrars are not able to operate at an
> appropriate level of service, no new registrars will be added until
> the level of service rises to an acceptable level.
> 
> In a little more detail, IAHC will accept applications on a monthly
> basis.  The monthly batch of applications will be vetted for the
> qualifications of the applicants, and the qualified ones will be
> queued in random order to go online.  Thus, the order of selection is
> FCFS, at a granularity of one month, with ties being broken by random
> procedures.  If the IAHC gets behind vetting applicants the order
> will be preserved.
> 
> The process will start with the selection of the first two registrars in
> the queue from the first months batch of applications.  As soon as
> they are on line successfully sharing registrations, the third one
> will be added, and so on.  Registrars further back in the queue will
> of course be monitoring the progress of the operating registrars, and
> will incorporate and test procedures that are developed so that they
> can come online quickly.
> 
> This scheme would place no limits on the rate of growth of the number
> of registrars except the actual operational factors we are *all*
> interested in.
> 
> --
> 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

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com