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

["William X. Walsh" <william@tjns.tj>]

On 04-Dec-98 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> 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.

Just as a note, I do not advocate shared registries as an exclusive model, and
agree with Roland's statements below in their entirety.

> 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

-----------------------------------------------------------------
William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC
Network Operations            | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj
william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email,
+1-(209)-493-6144             | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 03-Dec-98 / Time: 20:44:34