To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, Ietf-Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@sidn.nl>
Date:
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:22:03 +0100
In-reply-to:
Your message of Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:57:24 -0500. <DF737E620579D411A8E400D0B77E671D7504D5@regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Why Interim Meetings?
Hi SCott,
The VeriSign gTLD registry is one. While we're functioning
with the existing NSI RRP, there are needed improvements and
additional capabilities that require use of a new protocol.
Yes of course. But I was wondering wether there are more. This to
avoid discussions like ``these monopolistic idiots of NSI are
forcing us to do this and we now need to invest in this technology
but we don't have money, they want to kill us, they took over the
IETF, look what they did with the power situation in California,
global warning'' and similar rants.
I vaguely remember once discussing the idea of a registration
protocol with another registry quite some time ago but forgot which
one.
Another group which should be interested is the other R in RRP:
the registrars. Registrars which deal with different TLD's have
questioned why there is not a standard way to register domains and
that it is a lot of work to figure out the different procedures
etc. Although, when they have figured it out they loose interest.
(Because now this knowledge gives them an advantage over competitor,
as one told me).
jaap