Re: [ifwp] Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

At 03:56 PM 12/3/98 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>This does not mean I think IOD should not have a strong case for managing
.web,
>but I do not think their application for operating the .web registry
should be
>exclusive.  Other potential registries should be able to propose for that
TLD,
>as well as the others, according to whatever procedure and application
process
>is decided appropriate.

I clipped this out because I want to focus on this one issue. This is aside
from Chris having *already* conceeded sharing the registry, in an e-mail
which I know was sent to you. You two only have one issue as I see it. Your
insistance that IOD start over from scratch with no acknowlegement of any
prior history. it is for this reason that MHSC has not yet declared it's
exact desire for a specific TLD name. Partially becasue it really doesn't
matter tyo us which TLD we use. Unlike IOD, MHSC has not done any marketing
of its secure registry services and has no sunk-cost investment in a
particular TLD name. However, we have done a lot of work on the charter of
operations for such a TLD.

On the other hand, MHSC has an issue with mandating a shared registry
structure, as the only structure possible. I know that MHSC may differ from
the official ORSC stance on this. We don't argue against shared registries,
what we argue against is shared registries as an exclusive model. We feel
that this is right on up there with mandated business models. Be that as it
may,  there is *one* major reason to allow a non-shared registry model.
That entity is a secure TLD operating on a very restricted registry
charter. The shared registry allows some yokel to register a SLD, with a
secure TLD, in violation of the security charter. Such a charter could
require the candidate SLD to pass some type of security audit. The remote
registrar may, or may not, be qualified to perform this audit. Regardless
of that case, it also opens up the secure TLD to possible security breaches.

In the general case, we must indeed ask ourselves why we are making
additional gTLDs. If it is simply to create additional name space then a
shared model may work. However, if these new TLD s are to be specifically
chartered then using remote registrars make less sense because charter
enforcement becomes difficult at best. MHSC maintains there is room enough
for both types of operation, non-specific shared TLD registries and
chartered registries with specific purposes. We further maintain that the
exact name of such a chartered TLD is irrelevent as the charter it operates
under will soon make the TLD well known, if it is successful.

Yes, there is a very real lock-in potential , especially with a
security-chartered TLD. However, were there to be a severe problem I am
sure that a competing TLD would arise quickly. I have reasonable
information that IBM is also considering these things, in this way, in its
e-commerce division. The same group that released the PKIX tool-kit.


___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: staff<http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________ 
Who is John Galt?
"Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand