> From: John Curran <[email protected]>
> 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.
How well does having a single registry for .COM work - can IANA (or ICANN, I
guess, actually) pull their contract if they start performing either the
allocation or server aspects poorly? Because even though there's only one
registry for .COM, everything seems to work pretty well, and has for quite
a while.
(Actually, there are three functions here: i) interacting with the public,
which is 'registrars', ii) uniquely allocating the namespace, and iii)
running the servers which provide public access to the authoritative
database. For DNS, the latter two are both in the same monopoly. I think that
in a system which splits out iii), that does not have to be a monopoly; ii)
pretty much has to be a monopoly - although for 'flat' namespaces, you could
do a two-level allocation, which would allow competition there too.)
But I agree with the whole 'build it organically as we need it' concept -
I think a lot of this could be put off for now, although it might be worth
discussing it _briefly_ in the document.
Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
