Re: [wg-c] Position paper: Commentary on three points.

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Joseph,

I don't think I understand this sentence:

	Running a registry of a specific TLD is a function only one
	entity can perform.  There can be no competition in this
	arena.

Could you expand just slightly, using NSI, NSI's SRS, and one of NSI's
TLDs as an example? You may not have noticed in the NAA position paper
that the NAA registry architecture is a shared access, physically
distributed registry, with several initial registrars. A registry is
after all, a data base, and distributed databases with distinct access
managers and global consistency are solved problems. There is nothing
in the NAA proposal that is trust-model specific, so distrust (aka
"competitive exclusionary access to limited resources, e.g, registrants")
is not precluded between the shared registry managers.

Kent, Dave, Roberto and Sylvain covered this ground over a year ago, and
cirulated an I-D on some technical aspects of shared registry models.

You questioned the permanence of the MoU, and I wouldn't describe it as
"set in stone" (shades of Moses), but I wouldn't describe it as plastic
within the lifetime of Working Group C, and certainly not within the
"testbed period" of your proposal.

You could have gotten around this limitation (ICANN not being a safe
harbor for dumping the registry on) by finding another entity as safe
or neutral or whatever characteristic you associate with ICANN. There
are scads of choices, from Medecins Sans Frontieres (to be topical) to
the International Chambers of Commerce (to be tres avant marche, ala
Milt et alia).

Cheers,
Eric