[NA-Discuss] Connecting.nyc Inc.- ALS Application 171

[Garth Bruen at Knujon.com]

I'll add it as a discussion item for Monday's call.

While the news has covered storm damage and the suffering of folks in NY & 
NJ, few are aware that critical portions of our e-commerce have been kept 
alive with gasoline for a week. It would be an interesting statistic to see 
just how much gasoline...

--------------------------------------------------
From: <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:57 PM
To: <gbruen at knujon.com>
Cc: <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Connecting.nyc Inc.- ALS Application 171

>> ... this has been interesting to follow
>
> I suggest that it is possible to do more -- within a narrow reading of the
> At Large advisory mission -- than just follow with interest.
>
> The requirements for new registries circa 2013/2014 are significantly 
> higher
> than for registries new circa 2004/2005, or new circa 2001, or the subject
> of redelegations circa 2002 and 2004, and of course, registries 
> pre-existing
> the transfer of the IANA Functions Contract from ISI to The New Entity.
>
> Independent of whether this raises competition policy concerns, these 
> higher
> levels of requirements, some, in my view frivolous, e.g., ipv6 
> connectivity
> ab initio, zone signing ab initio, do not include geographic redundency, 
> nor
> do they require, or merely offer guidance, on services which are in the 
> public
> interest, and must, or should, be restored before services which are not.
>
> I do not claim that any redundency or order of illumination requirement 
> will
> have a clear benefit when an operator is affected by an event such as the
> landfall of a hurricane, however, the experience of registrars located in
> the hurricane landfalls of Florida and Lousiana has been one of 
> near-failure
> and near-miss, and it is only a matter of time until a registry is the 
> subject
> of heroic efforts and/or failover programs.
>
> A redundency requirement and a critical operations first plan requirement
> would add to the technical, and policy cultures of stability and 
> resiliency,
> and for that reason I suggest that advice is both now due, and prudent.
>
> Eric
>
>