Re: Definition of Registry

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

At 11.38 +0100 01-01-05, Marcel Schneider wrote:
>On Friday, 5 Jan 2001, "Peter Mott" writes:
>
>I completely agree with Peter's analysis blow. But the
>important fact for this group is: there are two models
>for registries/registrars/agents. The 'lightweight'
>registry model (just DB and connectivity) is mostly
>used in gTLD's and will continue to be (one of the
>reasons is that it has not the registry as a bottelneck).
>
>The 'policy-setting' registry is more common in ccTLD's and
>will continue to be.

Isn't it the case that we actually have two orthogonal things we talk about?

               | no-policy   |    policy   |
--------------+-------------+-------------+
thin registry |             |             |
--------------+-------------+-------------+
fat registry  |             |             |
--------------+-------------+-------------+

I.e. the question on thin or fat is just about where information of 
domain name holder is (at registry or registrar) while policy can 
still exist or not, regardless of this fact.

Yes, most domains _with_ policy are also fat registries, but that is 
a statistical fact, and not something built into the definitions.

Also, you can have a registry for non-TLD's aswell, aswell as for 
"other things than domains" as Karl said. If the consensus on this 
list were to do something for domains, and not too generic, even 
though it is good if it can be used for other things, I still think 
we should talk about a registry being the responsible registry for a 
domain, and not just TLD.

    paf