Your point depends on no one using local copies of the root-zone. This
is patently false. Almost every major ISP does exactly this becasue it
enhances high-availability architectures and eliminates the
root-servers.net machines as external points of failure (EPOF). When
building H-A systems, external points of failure are the number one
priority on th elimination list. After EPOFs, SPOFs are next in line.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:owner-domain-policy@INTERNIC.NET]On
> Behalf Of John Charles Broomfield
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 11:12 AM
> To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
> Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder
> what
>
>
> William Walsh wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 18:39:53 -0400 (AST), John Charles Broomfield
> > <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:
> > >William Walsh wrote:
> > >> >At 01:24 PM 7/10/99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > >> >>According to ICANN, you would have to charge $1US per
> domain, as a floor
> > >> >>price. I don't see provisions for "free" registries.
> You would have to
> > >> >>operate outside of the ICANN scope.
> > >> >
> > >> >You make an assertion about ICANN that is false, namely
> their view that a
> > >> >registrar would have to charge at least a specific
> amount. And you make an
> > >> >"economic" assertion that is false, namely that ICANN
> should treat "free"
> > >> >registries specially.
> > >> >
> > >> >These are simple and direct assertions you made and my
> response to them has
> > >> >been in kind.
> > >>
> > >> Its simple, ICANN should not be charging a $1/domain fee at all.
> > >> ICANN needs to charge for services it actually renders.
> No service
> > >> that ICANN provides is tied to the quantity of second
> level domains.
> > >
> > >Oh, but I beg to differ strongly. One of the most
> important tasks that will
> > >eventually be under control of ICANN is the management of
> the root-servers.
> > >
> > >I can assure you that the amount of hits that a
> root-server gets DOES have
> > >something to do with the amount of SLDs under that
> particular TLD. Thus it
> > >would make sense for something along those lines (the more
> usage, the more
> > >you get charged).
> >
> > The root servers should not be serving data on gTLDs. The registry
> > should manage and pay for their own DNS.
> > So, no, I disagree on this point entirely.
>
> I was thinking ONLY about the hits that the root servers get
> through queries
> to resolve TLDs. If you compare the hits that rootservers get
> asking them
> about ".uk" or ".de" and compare that for example to hits
> they get for ".gp"
> or "mq", you will understand my point.
> Now, if (as it should be done anyway) you eliminate
> com/net/org SLD data from
> the root servers, then you will (again) find that my point is valid.
> The point: the bigger a TLD, the more usage of root-servers
> it has, thus it
> DOES make sense to levy a per-domain fee.
> I'll agree that the amount of SLDs in a TLD does not square
> EXACTLY with the
> amount of root-server hits it's going to generate, but it is
> not that far
> off.
>
> Yours, John Broomfield.
>