Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation systems

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Danny Younger wrote:

> On the other hand, I'm not willing to take the cavalier attitude that if 
> a registry fails it's not a big deal (as invariably it's the registrants 
> that will be affected).

> That said, I would be comfortable passing on the business plan 
> examination if I has assurances that ICANN had developed a registry 
> failover program.

Two points -

First, if a person is made clearly aware of the risks *before* chosing to 
buy a name in a TLD then we ought not to underwrite and insure against 
failure.  The concern about protection ought to only apply to those who 
have built their names without the ability to obtain full knowlege of the 
risks.  Right now that means just about everybody.  But in a future in 
which there are more TLD options then we should hopefully become less and 
less concerned with registry failures because more and more people will be 
able to go in with their eyes open.

We see some open eyes - people very clearly comprehend that building a 
name in my .ewe is a silly thing to do (and you will eventually see my 
list of disclaimers when I go beta with the registry.)  It would be wrong 
to build a regulatory system to protect those who venture with open eyes 
into .ewe.

Second, I have long advocated that ICANN handle the registry/registrar 
failure issue in this way:

Every year every registry and registrar must file a letter from an 
independent auditor of business practices that affirms that in the opinion 
of that auditor the registry or registrar in question has appropriate (and 
tested) practices for the protection and preservation of business assets 
so that in the event of a business failure that some new entity can come 
along, pick up the assets, and resume service to customers.

That gets ICANN out of specifying the exact nature of the procedures and 
places the burden on the auditor.

		--karl--