Re: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE)

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

Simon,

> Could you please provide a definition of "shared registries" (as opposed to 
> "registrars")?

At least two independant functionally distinct mechanisms exist to support
multiple reader, mediated writer access, the NSI-SRS mechanism, discussed
on another list Rick and I are on, and the SRSP mechanism, which is a more
general mechanism.

Neither of these however attempts the problem(s) of registry operator failure
in the presence of two or more temporally colocated or disjoint-sequential
registry operators. Both allow for a single point of failure.

You'll want to read Position Paper D (its not long, and if WG-C had a single
test for admission, it would be having read at least PPD twice), then ask any
question you think prudent or useful.

We assume that when .NAA becomes operational, that within some reasonable
period of time some other registry, e.g., .MUS, will also be operational,
and that the disjoint operators will adopt a risk-adverse internal data 
model and practice, e.g., common format (or convertable format), routine
data transport, routine replication and routine escrow.

> How does cost-recovery not become price-fixing (illegal in the most 
> countries including the US)?

If this is a different issue than the one Chris Ambler then it deserves a
better presentation, if it isn't, then it is already asked and answered.

Before getting hijacked off into one of a long series of ratholes, S/K only
the latest, the discussion of pricing was vigorous and interesting. Please
see the archives, you'll want to look for discussion in particular of why a
price floor set at NSI's present marginal cost might preserve NSI's monopoly.

You may want to introduce yourself to the rest of WG-C as well, not everyone
will recall the exchange between Tony Rutkowski and myself on the subject of
the IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root, or realize that you are the
CTO & Bottle Washer of the SuperRoot Consortium, a happy collection of folks
who've simply no business pissing under the ICANN tent having put up canvas
of their own somewhere else.

I'm not sure which is worse, having Jim Flemming go on about his cure for
everything, Jeff Williams go on about having more supporters than the Dallas
Cowboys, or the ICANN-optional crowd treating ICANN working groups lacking a
test for good-faith participation as ritual urinals.

Cheers,
Eric