David Keegel wrote:

> ] >At 16:13 +1000 25/6/98, Larry Bloch wrote:
> ] >
> ] >>I am opposed to a shared registry system. I don't believe that
> this is the
> ] >>wayto go because in the end what you have is a CORE style
> organisation in
> ] >>the middle.
> ] >>...
> ] >
> ] >And the proposed alternative:
> ] >
> ] >>Level 1: AU-NOMINET
> ] >>Level 2: Any ISP wanting to be a COM.AU registrar
> ] >>Level 3: End Buyers
> ]
> ] At 15:22 26/06/98 +1000, Richar Archer wrote:
> ] >
> ] >This model still requires a shared registry system. The multiple
> Level 2
> ] >operators share the registry operated by AU-NOMINET. In this
> model,
> ] >MelbourneIT would become a level 2 operator.
> ]
> ] Not really. Rregistrations are applied for by a multitude of
> members via a
> ] secure system (email and PGP in the UK. The Central body is
> undisputedly
> ] the registry.
> ]
> ] In this model Melbourne IT and CIA and NetRegistry and anyone who
> wanted to
> ] could operate on an equal footing (just as we all do apart from
> Melbourne
> ] IT now).
> ]
> ] The difference is that there is no FOR-profit entity in the
> middle, and
> ] therefore the central fee is far lower. Thus ALL players can
> compete on a
> ] level playing field.
>
> I can understand what Richard Archer said, and I agree with it.
> I can't understand what Larry is saying here.
>
> Let me try to see if you are talking at cross-purposes.  Maybe its a
>
> terminology problem.  Here's my understanding of how this model
> would
> map to a *.au environment (at least com.au, net.au) :-
>
> Level 1: AU-NOMINET (not-for-profit association to be created, which
> would
>          manage a shared registry system, accessible by Level 2:
> Registrars)
> Level 2: Registrars: Melbourne IT, connect.com.au, iinet,
> NetRegistry, TI,
>          many ISPs etc (what Melbourne IT used to call PISPs)
> Level 3: End Buyers
>
> Like NOMINET in the UK, this hypothetical AU-NOMINET could be owned
> by the
> Registrars (level 2 entities).  eg: Melbourne IT/INA would be a
> member.
>
> To me, this sounds like a very workable model.

Both CORE and nominet use this model in the sense that the registry
is:
- not for profit
- owned by the registrars/ISPs.

It builds in mechanisms to keep:
- registry prices low
- services at a level that the users require

and it stops the registry from competing with the registrars/ISPs

Leni
--
Leni Mayo                          Ph:    +61 3 9428 5530
                                   Fax:   +61 3 9428 5902
Moniker Pty Ltd                    E-mail: mailto:leni§moniker.net
Internet Domain Names              WWW:    http://www.moniker.net