Re: DNS: Revised selection criteria for new DNAs/2LDs

Re: DNS: Revised selection criteria for new DNAs/2LDs

From: Kevin Dinn <kevin§zip.com.au>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:45:39 +0000
At 08:49 30/07/97 +0800, you wrote:
>
>> I basically agree with you re: QoS and market forces.  However none of
>> what you have said addresses the concern of stability in the
>> marketplace.  The other selection criteria that relates to stability is:
>> 
>> 7. Must submit contingency plan for support of its domains if business
>> fails or decides to stop being DNA,
>> 
>> If the domains are going to "sit in the DNS", then what does this mean?
>
>Peter may disagree, but in my opinion, it means "nothing".
>It costs noone anything, and they get no service.  If they
>need anything at all done (such as a redelegation), then
>they'll need to find a new DNA to do it.
>
>If we can separate the three independant functions of:
>
>	o Host for the software/database
>	o Authoritive name servers
>	o DNA (the one who actually deals with clients)
>
>then we also remove much of the problems in the event of a
>DNA disappearing.
>
>Authoritive name servers are redundant, so losing one is
>bad, but can quickly be replaced without any real
>disadvantage to the community (one less authority equals
>a slightly slower lookup in 1/n cases).  We can have
>organisations tender for the right to be an authority for
>any 2LD, but the price will tend to zero, with the real
>issue being a subjective recognition of connectivity.
>
>The hoster of the software (let's call them a NIC) is more
>of an issue.  If we require the the databases to be public,
>it becomes less of a problem.  Even if a rogue disappears
>with the database, there will be copies available elsewhere.
>
>Losing a DNA is, in my opinion, a non event for the DNS.
>
>MM
>

Well if this is all the case then guaranteeing the viabilty of DNAs is not
such a big issue - which would be a relief. So really all we are after is
to make sure that the applicants aren't going to waste ADNA's time with
applications they aren't serious about and they won't bring the whole
process into disrepute.

Is this other people's understanding?


Regards

--
Kevin Dinn ____________________    o    _          _--_|\    ZIP P/L 
Business Manager              /____|___|_)________/______\_____________
www.zip.com.au                         | .        \_.--._/  Virtually
Phone: (Australia) 02 92 704 777  Fax: 92 475 276       v  the best :-)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(soon to be ex) President - Australian Internet Alliance (www.aia.asn.au)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Received on Wed Jul 30 1997 - 12:10:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC