RE: [wg-c] Final version of proposal

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

> Behalf Of Kent Crispin
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 8:35 PM

> proposal.  Instead, this proposal concentrates on another area,
> largely ignored in the debate so far -- the area of Internet
> stability.

I believe that I made htat point as well.

> The basic question of stability, as far as DNS registration services
> are concerned, is "what happens if the registry becomes unavailable"?
> In concrete terms, what happens if Network Solutions registry is
> taken out of commission for an extended period of time through
> physical, political, or economic disaster?  Who would take over?
> How would the data be recovered?

There is a plan that includes this stability factor.

> Proposal

IMHO, this proposal is overly complex and top-heavy with bureaucracy. The
technical solution of requireing mutual secondaries and allowing the
customers themselves to take over operation of the TLD registry should be
adequate. Failing to revive the TLD in this manner, the root-registry has
sufficient capability to support that TLD while the existing customers find
another home. That TLD may then be dissolved. Why support a TLD that isn't
self-sufficient and has insufficient market support?