[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request: discussionof wholesale price for names

[Harold J. Feld]

I wasn't touching on the TLD issue, only on the fact that there is 
nothing sinister about developing alternatives to BIND.

todd glassey wrote:

> Harold its more than just Scalability Issues, its the old manual processes
> of creating the orders and maintaining the lists of who and what is what.
> The other issue is the unmodeld linkage between the Registries and the
> Registrars. So what happens is that there are essentially two complete sets
> of Data Bases that needs to be maintained. The first at the registrars and
> the second set at the registries... Unfortunately the Registries DB must
> include the Customer Data and the DNS Databases as well, so their world is
> even more complex than the registrars...
> 
> So perhaps there need to be a better set of operational models for how
> registrars and registries communicate.
> 
> Todd
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harold J. Feld" <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
> To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
> Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request:
> discussionof wholesale price for names
> 
> 
> 
>>I'd add that there is nothing sacred about BIND.  Isn't it good to have
>>multiple products that perform the same function?
>>
>>Harold
>>
>>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Until we add more than 500 TLDs a year there is
>>>no issue with BIND and DNS. None.
>>>
>>>If VeriSign is having scaling problems might that
>>>have something to do with the amount of market
>>>concentration within its domain? Com is a pretty
>>>big zone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>"todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net> 08/28/02 04:57PM >>>
>>>>>>
>>>Milton - you are calling for the addition of more TLD's and this is an
>>>issue. It is an issue with DNS and BIND and how it works. Specifically
>>>
> how
> 
>>>it scales and how it is managed. Bluntly the adding of more TLD's is not
>>>
> the
> 
>>>answer with the current framework. In fact it is so costly to manage
>>>
> these
> 
>>>that registrars are choked with what they have now.
>>>
>>>Likewise the answer is not to add more Registrars per se. Its to make
>>>
> the
> 
>>>Address Resolution process more scalable and certainly more manageable.
>>>
> If
> 
>>>you have any doubts ask Verisign why it would spend money to develop an
>>>alternative to BIND and Name Service management infrastructures that
>>>
> they
> 
>>>call Atlas.
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Discuss mailing list
>>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Discuss mailing list
>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> 
> 
>