On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:52 PM, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote:
> At this stage of the game, I believe a simple, unified and centralized > registry with a straightforward non-discriminatory allocation policy is quite > sufficient. If folks are uncomfortable with the scalability of that model, > adding text that describes an evolutionary plan (that could include a > registry/registrar split) should the centralized registry be unable to cope > with demand might make sense, but I don't think we need to do much more that > document the plan. I haven't heard the registry/registrar approach discussed for "scalability" but as a protection against arbitrary/non-representative fees increases. This is avoided with the RIRs by being membership organizations with elected boards; another way is the registry/registrar model where the ability to switch registrars provides a form of protection via market incentives. The choice of going with a single registry with neither competition or nor elected oversight may also work, but places enormous faith in the enduring best intentions of the enlightened and benevolent overseers, particularly once there is significant usage and a complete lack of viable alternatives. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Concepts may be larger than they appear. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
