[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On the continuity instrument

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,

I took the opportunity to talk with Patrick Jones about the continuity 
instrument, consistent with my comments on DAGv5.
See: http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00064.html

I will follow-up.

Coincidentally, as I prepare a issue summary from the GAC 
communique(s) I noticed this:
2.6 It is important that the selection process for new gTLDs ensures 
the security, reliability, global interoperability and stability of 
the Domain Name System (DNS) and promotes competition, consumer 
choice, geographical and service provider diversity.
Clearly the unintended effect of a high cost continuity instrument 
will reduce geographical and service provider diversity, particularly 
if the repertoire of facilities based technical service providers is 
limited to Reston, Toronto, Dortmund, Melbourne, Santa Monica and 
Brussels.
I also noticed this:

2.11 ICANN and a new gTLD operator/registry should establish clear 
continuity plans for maintaining the resolution of names in the DNS in 
event of registry failure. These plans should be established in 
coordination with any contingency measures adopted for ICANN as a whole.
It is interesting that the GAC notion of continuity is limited to 
resolution, a requirement which could be met by simply freezing a 
registry's zone file and ensuring that it does not expire, as was done 
during the .ht failure. The cost of a freeze-and-republish-only mode 
of continuity is fairly low, even for years of continuity.
Eric