Re: exclusivity of TLD's

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Michael Dillon allegedly said:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Kevin Brown wrote:
> 
> > Part of a single rooted tree has one policy ( Shared registry, open
> > delegation ) and the other part of the tree has another ( Exclusive
> > registry, no standards, closed final delegation). Funny, in nature, usually
> > the branches are equally covered by leaves. No not the DNS tree, all the
> > leaves want to grow in .com, no water gets to the ISO Leaves :-)
> 
> It appears to me that the IAHC is giving exclusive control of all gTLD's
> now and forever to one single registry. 
> 
> But it is also handing the customer service part of the registry
> activities to a small number of companies and eventually will allow anyone
> and everyone to handle this activity.

That is my impression, also, Michael.  I am rather concerned that this
approach really does not solve the problem, and is structurally not
that much different from NSI starting up a bunch of remote customer
service branches (perhaps adding a representative from each customer
service branch to the NSI board of directors, to mimic CORE), and 
taking over all gTLDs.  The IAHC proposal still retains a very strong 
"central authority" flavor.

> Perhaps there is a terminology problem here. When I first suggested this
> model for name registries, I used the term "registry" for what IAHC calls
>  a "registrar". And I refereed to a single central database authority
> where they use the term "registry". Perhaps in the final draft a new term
> could be chosen for the central database manager and then IAHC can say
> things like
> 
>      The central DBM does not engage in registry activities but
>      provides the essential database services to all gTLD registries.
> 
> I think a number of people are missing this point.

I agree.  I would go even further, and use words like this:

	"If necessary, CORE will establish central services to
	facilitate coordination between registrars.  The central
	services should be the minimum required to coordinate
	registrars, and have no other function."

-- 
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