Registrar and registry backend processes.
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
brunner at nic-naa.net
Tue Jan 18 08:16:50 UTC 2005
> For what it is worth, some consider the .de whois server broken; see
> below. Let's note that the new RFC (3912) doesn't mention the "help
> methodology" anymore.
In the high stakes game of registry redelegation, with .org as a data point
and the new gTLD competition (winners: [info,biz,name,pro]) as another, the
difference of function of what answers on :43 isn't, IMO, a liability.
It is both trivial to fix, and defensible (EU Data Protection Framework),
and not in the criteria set that appears to be key in the selection of bids.
The criteria for selection of the next .net delegation operator is likely,
in my limited experience, to turn on issues that have little to do with a
bidders actual ability to operate the .net registry.
Aside: In January 2002 I wrote Request to Move RFC 954 to Historic Status,
published as draft-brunner-rfc954-historic-00.txt. Two years later, Leslie
Daigle wrote a different draft which is now rfc3912.
Aside: A ccTLD operator submitted a bid for .org.
The "technical evaluator" retained by ICANN ranked the bids submitted by
existing gTLD operators other than VGRS as (1) info, (2) biz, (3) pro.
I was surprised by the presence of (2) and (3) on the list, and by the
absence of two bids from that list.
If you want to look for a real criteria, you might want to ask "How long
after the transfer will the new operator receive any monies for the set
of registrations contained in the registry at the moment of transfer?"
More information about the NANOG