Jeff,
> > > > 2.) The REGISTRY- Owns the database for the management of
> > > > information pertaining to all TLD's that are contained within that
> > > > database.
...
> > sale of 2 is not sale
> > of the info contained in it, because that info belongs either to 1 or 3.
>
> This is not completely correct. Re-read the definition of
> number 2 again, and it becomes obvious as to why I am saying this
> if you think about it. >;)
I think there are all sorts of precedent for separating 'management
of info' from the info itself, and therefore for the separation of rights.
Dont you?
> > > > 3.) The REGISTRAR- Owns the information which relates to the
> > > > registrar's information services in any TLD name space for which
> > > > that registrar has permissions from a REGISTRY.
> > >
...
> > The idea is to prevent polarization; it may be that either 1 or 2 can
> > *perform the role* of 3, but by setting forth the concept of a
> > 'middleman,' both can see that the line between them is a pretty
> > nebulous thing.
>
> It is true that Definitions of 1 and 2 could potentially perform some
> of the functions of 3, but it is not likely that 1 would do so or should
> do so for obvious reasons. However many of those functions of
> 3 could be automated to that point, and the need for 3 severely reduced.
> (BTW, stay tuned, we are working on some of this level of automation
> currently) >;)
>
Indeed, once a role is defined, it almost goes without saying that
it can be automated -- I expect we'll see 1-rights being allocated
automatically before too long...
...
> it is entirely possible for 1 to
> operate as 3 in many cases and 3's role to be severely limited.
Of course; definition is one thing; implementation is another...
> However 2 must be distinct... 2 and 3 functions could be
> combined, but it is not advisable to do so for obvious reasons. 1
> can at some point, with easy to use automation from a web interface
> provided by 2, could to a great degree supplant 3's existence.
2 is distinct only by virtue of its uniqueness (and for that reason
alone, it ought to be as automated as humanly possible), but as
long as 1s have to *petition to be included in the cosmic database,
there will be 3-intercessors... Conversely, suppose each human
birth is *automatically registered -- then 3 is irrelevant.
(Personally, Im an ICANNoclast, but if trading in birth-rights gets
established then the contact info will need to be changed; and
since hopefully this process will entail guaranteed support
('access') until the seller comes into another name/ domain, there
are 'enforcement' aspects as well -- so we might do well to keep an
honorary 3 in place, with very arcane registration-rituals, conducted
in an independent city-state someplace...)
kerry
