🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Eric Weisberg wrote:

> If we are designing a system from scratch and can provide protection
> against an otherwise naturally occurring disasterous phenomena, why not do
> so?  In other words, why not  (as Michael suggests) have a mechanism for
> continuing the existence of a TLD after the entity which undertakes its
> propogation ceases to function?

Actually, this is technically possible if we have rules that TLD operators
*MUST* abide by then we can require them to make their infrastructure
databases available, via real-time escrow, to a backup database system. In
the event of failure the root nameserver operators can point TLD requests
to the backup servers.

However, please note that the technical infrastructure and the overall
authority required would need a lot of details worked out and in the end
would be rather similar to what the gTLD-MoU folks have come up with.

This has never been explored because all those who were in favor of
privately-run TLDs wanted there to be no central authority of any kind and
were not willing to discuss escrows and backup arrangements. The people
who did believe that some sort of coordinating body was required basically
decided that rather than protect against failure they might as well build
a system in which that failure scenario could never develop. 

--
Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael@memra.com