Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP
On 13 Oct 2003 at 19:55, Eric Dierker wrote:
> Just call me a devils advocate;
> Isn't it business that will create stability.
> Certanly we have seen that governance cannot do it.
> e
While business may effect consumer satisfaction and pricing, it will most
likely not
create stability when it comes to the DNS. Verisign has already shown, with
its
SiteFinder, that business will do what increases the bottom line whether it is
good for
stability or not. Were it not for the consumer outcry, disruption would have
been
rampant and still might be if Verisign decides to re-introduce this so-called
service.
When it comes to a domain name registry - as opposed to a registrar - it is
vital that
standards are followed. The many reasons have already been stated, not the
least
of which is that these *ehancements* and *services* are meant to be innovated
at
the edges and not at the core.
Businesses will go for a monopoly when they can get away with it. That is not
always best for stability and is certainly not good for the consumer. Verisign
conrols
a monopoly in .com and .net, but the registry operation should remain pure,
with the
only *services* being smooth, secure, registration operations. The NSI
registrar can
innovate and add value-added services just as other registrars have done.
Those
are edge services and do not effect the core. An example is the typical
parking
page that almost all registrars offer for registered domains that do not have
specific
nameservers and use the registrar's services instead. The registry, however,
should
not ever implement this or similar services. Even when the registry is also
the
registrar, the operations should be separate so that the core (registry)
remains just
that, especially when it comes to returning proper RCODE.
Leah