RE: [wg-c] how many = what number?

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

I submit that we're getting back to angels and pins again. I'd like to
suggest the following compromise;

1) Develop requirements that a TLD registry MUST meet, a minimum SLA.
This SLA must be met on day-one of operational birth, on a zero-defect
basis.
2) Restrict the registry to ONE TLD until it meets solvency
requirements.
3) Allow no more than 10 registries to be on such "probation" at any
single point in time.
4) After a fixed period, if the registry can not pass the solvency test,
its license gets retracted and becomes available to someone else.

This is basic queueing theory applied to business. I agree that having
too many marginal TLD registries, at once, would be bad for business
stabilty. Personally, I don't think you'll even get five in the first
year. The way I see it, IOD would start WEB, IperDome would start PER,
and CORE could start ONE of theirs. MHSC may, or may not, go public with
VPN, we (MHSC) haven't decided yet (other factors). At this time, I
don't see many other players.

Note that business fail-over, network fail-over, and other redundancy
considerations must be considered and allowed for in the minimum SLA.
The SLA should be mandated by the recognised authority. But, more
importantly, the SLA requirements themselves MUST BE STABLE. Changing
the structure of the universe, every few months, as we have been, is
unacceptable.

Side notes:
1) NSI had "only" a 98.6% uptime for 1998. IMHO a TLD registry needs
99.9% uptime,  at minimum.
2) Solvency requirements need to include SLA requirements and the
registry should  be reviewed annually.
3) Forcing periodic re-bid is counter-productive. The business impact of
such a policy has been naively understated.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of A.M.
> Rutkowski
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 4:40 AM
> To: Milton Mueller; Jonathan Weinberg
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] how many = what number?
>
>
> At 02:44 PM 8/20/99 , Milton Mueller wrote:
> >If the number is 10 or greater, then I could add my support to that
> >option, as long as it also contained a provision ensuring
> that several
> >competitive registries would also be authorized.
>
> I would argue that if it is not 10 or greater,
> you will be creating a cause of action for some
> class of parties, as ICANN will be significantly
> decreasing the increase the number of TLDs.
> The circumstances will also be aggrevated
> if CORE TLDs appear on the list of new TLDs,
> because the CORE types dominate ICANN.
>
>
>
>
> --tony
>