Does it conflict with ICANN's bylaws? I suppose it would under some
definitions of registry, but my working definition of registry was that it
maintained the entries *and* provided name resolution services.
And paying once may or may not be an advantage, that would depend on the
amount you're paying, wouldn't it?
Actually, I'm thinking the advantages come more from the separation of the
list maintenance function from the name resolution service function. There
are advantages to making the DNS tree a more general purpose mechanism, the
primary function of which is to guarantee the uniqueness of entries.
In other words, don't make any assumptions about the uses of the tree, just
provide a means to obtain a unique entry in a tree hierarchy. Then license
portions of the tree to those who wish to use it to provide services (again,
not just the current implementation). If I want name resolution service for
my entry, I pay a provider to 'turn on' my entry. The financial arrangements
for continuing service are between me and the provider. If I discontinue
service, the name no longer resolves, but the entry doesn't disappear from
ICANN's list.
This increases the utility of the tree, and provides for more permanence.
There are lots of ways that such a tree could be useful, in addition to the
context of the public Internet.
I'm sure Roland Meyer could think of a bunch.
David Schutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Greg
Skinner
Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 2:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] RE: Privacy of Domain Registration Information
"David Schutt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd recommend that ICANN be a registration authority only. The keeper of
>lists of unique entries.
>ICANN controls the collection, not the individual entries. ICANN does not
>publish (provide name resolution service).
Doesn't this conflict with ICANN's bylaws? This would effectively make
ICANN a registry.
>I or my organization registers a name with ICANN, and they add it to the
>list, guaranteeing that it will remain unique in the context of that list.
>That's it. I pay once.
The primary advantage of this model seems to be that you pay once.
However, you might wind up paying more for this registration than
paying the Internic (or whoever) to make modifications to your
entries, as appropriate. I think this would be a bad idea, because it
effectively makes ICANN a competitor to the other registries.
--gregbo
