[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Price Of Admission is Acceptable.
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:09:42 -0700
- From: "andi payn" <payn@null.net>
- Subject: Re: The Price Of Admission is Acceptable.
In reply to questions from Jim Dixon, Kent Crispin replied:
>>And the official plan remains that applications
>> for registrars will close soon. 15 October, right?
>Something like that. To be reopened as soon as possible thereafter.
>> And one mustn't lose sight of the other practice leading to oligarchy:
>> the stringent financial requirements. There is simply no justification
>> for the $300,000 credit line requirement. This is what is keeping out
>> the small players. This is why we have only 15 or so registrars.
>In the long run I agree that there is no justification...
Kent, I have a proposal:
On 15 October, close the applications. Begin working as quickly as possible
to go through all of the applications, take all of the approved registrars,
and get them to come to their consensus and get things started.
Meanwhile, on 16 October, reopen the applications, with the requirements
knocked down. Don't let any of these later applicants get involved in the
system until the first group has come to consensus on the basic question of
how to get started. Then throw them in.
Assuming that you're right that we need to limit the number of initial
registrars to 50 or 100 at most to make sure we organize, get a consensus,
and get things moving, my proposal will give you that result just as well as
yours.
On the other hand, there will be 1000 registrars ready to comment on the
initial consensus, help implement it, and help pay for it as soon as it's
ready. This way, you jump into what I believe you called "CORE 2," the
ultimate goal for CORE's structure, as soon as possible--in particular,
before the all-important March 1998.
In short, you have the clear, quick organization you'll get from "CORE 1"
and its limited pool of registrars, and you ensure there will be no
oligarchy because the vast created as soon as possible.
Is there any reason that your solution is better than this one?
The only objection I can think of is this: The companies that paid their
$10K, guaranteed a $300K line of credit, etc. are going to want some kind of
return on their investment. Well, they get to kick things off. They get to
make the decisions as to how everything gets started. If that's not worth it
to them, they can wait until 16 Oct.