Re: Definition of Registry

[Olivier Guillard <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr>]

le 09 Jan, Peter Mott a écrit :
> The registry database or register is the central repository from which zone
> files are published. It is administered by the registry operator under
> contract from the TLD manager.

So, with the today's model, you speak only about DNS db, not whois doesn't it?

I don't think that whois db should be decentralized: heterogeneous format of
furnish for the zone, non pertinent information etc.

Example:

whois youngrussian.com -h whois.opensrs.net

Registrant:
 none
 N.J.
 N.J., N.J. 12345678
 US

 Domain Name: YOUNGRUSSIAN.COM
 
 Administrative Contact:
    Menas, John  youngrussian@usa.net
    N.J.
    N.J., N.J. 12345678
    US
    456-7895

 Technical Contact:
    Menas, John  youngrussian@usa.net
    N.J.
    N.J., N.J. 12345678
    US
    456-7895

 Billing Contact:
    Menas, John  youngrussian@usa.net
    N.J.
    N.J., N.J. 12345678
    US
    456-7895



> > The registrant consideration is surely an important issue, but it
> > might not be the only one, especially for a ccTLD zone.
>
> I agree.  It is important to have an independant entity to define what must
> be part of the registrar - registrant contract and what perhaps must not.

And define also which name can be delegated to who under which condition.


> Many folk think this a registry role.  I have come to the conclusion after
> studing the various roles and relationships that the TLD manager is the
> entity to set such requirements.

I suppose that this is really context dependent. Another (real) problem is
what guaranties has what you call "the TLD manager", I would call this "the
comunity boards representents" that the requirements he has set up will be
effectively applied? (please, don't tell by contract :)

> In most situations I would see the TLD manager as being a not for profit
> organisation owned by members who represent the community of interest for
> the namespace in question.

Agree.


> The registry operator can then focus on its core business, that of enabling
> registrars accredited by the TLD manager to enter into registration
> contracts with registrants, and record such contracts in the register.

Context dependent, in many case this does work only in theory, not in
practise.


> > The .fr registry is one of the first that has distinguished the databases
> > maintaining from the furniture of services linked to domainames! At that
> > time NSI was selling domainnames and maintaning the . , .com,
> > .net and .org
> > db :)
> 
> I would prefer to see the central register containing only those elements of
> data that are required to allow shared access by competing registrars.

You sugest a simple web or mail that directly update the zone file: I don't
think that this is wishable. There must have a validation stamp include
IN THE registration process. This validation should be performed by a party
that guaranty that the comunity boards representents decisions are applyed.

Otherwise, any charter can be written, it won't be applyed.

> Whilst it is possible (indeed likely) for the TLD manager to require
> additional attributes, as soon as you start adding them issues such as data
> ownership and commercial value come into play.  If you keep the value of the
> data in the shared registry as low as possible, this minimises opportunity
> for capture and also keeps cost of maintaining it down.

My grand father said: I don't have the means to pay low cost :) The question
is not only to keep the costs as low as possible, the problem is also to build
a communal project with as many concerned poeple as possible implied in. When
the question is about communication, my feeling is that many poeple should be
concerned to avoid ghettos.

> Sure, the TLD manager can set whatever requirements by way of contract with
> accredited registrars.  But remember for the TLD to be successful (have a
> good selection of registrars for registrants to choose from) then the
> requirements have to be acceptable to the registrar community as well as the
> registrant community.

As I said, we know that such contracts work only in theory.
About finding an acceptable concensus, I agree, this is the question.

> > We don't try to prescribe to anyone what he has to do, we just think that
> > the .fr internet zone should grow with the respect of a "charter".
> 
> I endorse such an approach.  As long as the charter is an accurate
> reflection of the community of interest rather than a top level view of what
> one or two folk think the community needs :-)

Yep, that's why AFNIC is a non for profit organisation with users, governemental
and registrar members represented in the board. They have inputs coming from users
and professional working groups.


Best regard,

-- 
Olivier