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

[ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net]

> ... 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