Strawman Model 1/09/00
Strawmen Models for the .nz Registry
We present three models of possible structures for the .nz registry. Two models are thin in nature and the third is thick. Each model had a different author, hence the content and presentation varies. While this makes comparison more difficult it does mean that a number of different attributes have been introduced in the individual models that may be useful in a final solution.
In considering the effectiveness of these models it is use to keep in mind what can go wrong.
RACES.COM
Attempted transfer of name bungled by NSI, Register.com applicant grabbed it in the mean time. See http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974,00.html
SEX.COM
Domain stolen by forged letter to NSI transferring domain name. See http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,19140,00.html and http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0,1283,36247,00.html
The Domain Name Handbook has a bunch of examples of domain disputes. Most of these are trademark/cybersquatting issues rather than registry issues. However, look up AOLSEARCH.COM (trademark claim suspension), OGGI.CO.NZ (NZ setting & role of registry), RAPCITY.COM (disputes policy), VATICANO.ORG (payment problems, with complications).
- A "Thin" Model
This model has no interaction between a registrant and the registry. It introduces the concept of an escrow as a combined form of audit of registry operations and backup of registrant information. The model depends on a contract between each registrar and the ccTLD manager to enforce reliability of operations. - A Lighter Model
This model also removes all interaction between the registry and registrants. It holds more information within the registry and depends on a contract between registrars and the registry for reliable operation. - A Thick Model
The model uses structural safeguards including a certificate and electronic notification of operations to ensure reliable operation. It draws on attributes of the Canadian and UK models.
Finally, we attempted to isolate a set of fundamental questions that must be answered to finalise a registry design.
The working group requests that discussion of these models take place on the model-review@isocnz.org.nz mailing list.
© 2000 The Internet Society of New Zealand
Last updated 1 September 2000
