Re: combined shared/private?

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

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > > There are a number of shared registries in the world.  Nominet, which
> > > handles .UK, is one; DENIC, the German registry which handles .DE, is
> > > another.  Both are structured like CORE (and as far as I know CORE
> > > was consciously modelled on Nominet).
> >
> >   Hummmmm?  You didn't seem to agree with this a few weeks ago or
> > even days ago, Jim.  And I don't agree that CORE is consciously
> > modeled after Nominet at all.
> 
> A shared registry is one in which many domain name registrars have
> (more or less) direct access to a common database.  This is exactly
> how Nominet is structured.  What's more, Nominet is owned by its
> 420 registrars.  As far as I know, DENIC is the same sort of operation,
> with 50 or so registrars.

  Yes, and not a bad structure in a basic form.
> 
> I have spoken to many of the people involved in the gTLD MOU/PAB/POC/
> CORE group.  Many of them seemed to believe that they were modelling
> CORE on Nominet.
> 
> I am not saying that they did such a wonderful job ;-)

  Well you said this right!  Not even close.
> 
> CORE is certainly supposed to operate a shared registry; have a look at
> the system description in the RFP on http://core.gtld-mou.org.

  Been there several times and done so.  It leaves alot to be desired
and needed.  
> 
> > > We have something that works -- IANA and Jon Postel -- and various
> > > proposals, none of which look very solid.  I for one would prefer to
> > > change things gradually, checking to make things still work after each
> > > change.  We don't need chaos in the domain name system.
> >
> >   I don't like the gradual change approach in this case.  Normaly I
> > would prefer it.  But not here.  That approach has not the time to meet
> > probable demands soon comming.  Won't work.
> 
> You have to understand that the network operators, the ISPs, will not
> tolerate the huge risks involved in radical changes.  Neither will that
> small part of the world that is outside the boundaries of the USA.  If
> it came to it, if some nutty scheme for restructuring the Net were
> to come stumbling out over the Beltway, there would be no difficulty at
> all in finding funds for a real alternative to the current domain name
> system.  And I think that that alternative would be very very close to
> the current arrangement -- which works.

  I agree that ISP's and network operators would indeed be 
nurvous about any radical change in how their networks are
mannaged.  And as an old network manager myself I can identify
compleatly.  However, there are times where some radical change is
needed and an advantage.  i know this becouse I have done it
on a much smaller basis than the Internet myself, all be it
was the largest privatly owned network at that time.  It was
necessary.  And I believe that it is necessary in this instance
as well.
> 
> --
> Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council                                                 President
> Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679                                     tel +32 2 503 2265

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com