Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 Oct 2003 at 19:55, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Just call me a devils advocate;
> Isn't it business that will create stability.
> Certanly we have seen that governance cannot do it.
> e

While business may effect consumer satisfaction and pricing, it will most likely not 
create stability when it comes to the DNS.  Verisign has already shown, with its 
SiteFinder, that business will do what increases the bottom line whether it is good for 
stability or not.  Were it not for the consumer outcry, disruption would have been 
rampant and still might be if Verisign decides to re-introduce this so-called service.

When it comes to a domain name registry - as opposed to a registrar - it is vital that 
standards are followed.  The many reasons have already been stated, not the least 
of which is that these *ehancements* and *services* are meant to be innovated at 
the edges and not at the core.  

Businesses will go for a monopoly when they can get away with it.  That is not 
always best for stability and is certainly not good for the consumer.  Verisign conrols 
a monopoly in .com and .net, but the registry operation should remain pure, with the 
only *services* being smooth, secure, registration operations.  The NSI registrar can 
innovate and add value-added services just as other registrars have done.  Those 
are edge services and do not effect the core.  An example is the typical parking 
page that almost all registrars offer for registered domains that do not have specific 
nameservers and use the registrar's services instead.  The registry, however, should 
not ever implement this or similar services.  Even when the registry is also the 
registrar, the operations should be separate so that the core (registry) remains just 
that, especially when it comes to returning proper RCODE.

Leah