John, On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:21 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't heard the registry/registrar approach discussed for "scalability" > but as > a protection against arbitrary/non-representative fees increases.
The registry/registrar split allows for a partitioning of services in addition to providing competition that can tend to reduce fees and allow for people to vote with their feet (something the existing RIR system does not permit of course). > This is avoided with the RIRs by being membership organizations with elected > boards; Not really (particularly given the RIR memberships don't set fees), but this is the wrong venue to go down this rathole. > 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. I dunno -- IANA seems to have done pretty well with the 1000+ protocol parameter registries they manage with lightweight oversight by the IETF/IESG. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
