Re: [registrars] ORG Redelegation

[Patrick <dnso-reg@gandi.net>]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:30:42AM -0500, Ross Wm. Rader took time to write:
> Sometimes one can only get what they can take. I'd substantially agree with
> Bhavin that decreasing the scope of Verisign's monopoly in the namespace

(Isn't Verisign a shareholder in Afilias ?)

> substantially outweighs the costs and troubles that the dotORG redelegation
> will require. I'm not a fan of a thick registry either, but its the flavor
> of the month and until there are reasonable alternatives, I fear that we're
> stuck with it.

What is wrong with a thin one ?
Why, to begin with, was a thick registry shown as an alternative to a
thin one ?

When so many people are crying out loud that ICANN should focus on
the technical part of the business and nothing else, why does a
Registry need to know my fax number to be able to set up correct NS
records for my domain name ? 

Why should Registrars have a whois if the Registry has already all
data ?
Why should Registrars have escrow if the Registry has already all
data ?
Why should Registrars be involved in UDRP if the Registry has already
all data ?
etc...

> The important thing is to recognize that alternatives can be developed and
> should receive our support when they happen along (or more productively,
> registrars should start work now to ensure that these alternatives to happen
> along.)

I can agree with that, however not when there is unnecessary hurry.
2 months (less than that in fact) is in no case a reasonable amount
of time to do a change on the scale that is needed for .ORG (on a
Registry side _and_ on a Registrar side)

I am (not ?) sure that people thinking about ``Internet stability and
security'' are taking that into account.

Let's see on January 1st what happens.

Patrick Mevzek
Gandi.