] I think it extremely interesting that the timeframes as stated are
] even tighter than the rough draft I posted to this list! A draft
] timeline that even I thought was aggressive - and I've turned up
] national networks in a matter of weeks. I think this timeline
] is overly aggressive
 
It seems pretty optimistic to me too.
But I guess the WG itself is in the best position to know how
much time it needs to do this properly, and advise NOIE on what
is feasible.

] And quite frankly, I am still waiting for someone to explain in
] *convincing*, *rational* terms what exactly is broken in the
] current systems. Particularly that which deems it necessary to move
] with lightning speed to a new system.
 
I won't claim to do what you're asking, but one thing which was
pointed out as being broken at the DNS summit, was the fact that
Melbourne IT received a *non-exclusive* license to operate com.au,
but at present they are the *exclusive* operators of com.au.

I don't want to have to call a defence lawyer in the morning
(if its all the same with you guys, I'd rather do some work :-)
so let me hasten to add that the above is the view of Robert Elz
(or at least my recollection of it).

So that is an existence proof that we should do more than nothing.

There are probably a few other 2LDs where it would be good to have
alternative registrars (even if the back-end registry part stays
wherever it is now).  For example, alternative registrars could
give the applicant a choice of "cheap & slow" or "fast & expensive".

As to whether one can make a convincing argument of the need for a
total overhaul and/or lightning speed, I'll leave that as an exercise
for other readers of this list.
__________________________________________________________________________
 David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>  URL: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management