[council] new gTLD recommendations from the GNSO related to the use of registrars

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,


For a little historical context to the recent request from the Board.  


The GNSO produced a final report on a set of recommendations for introducing 
new gTLDs in August 2007:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm

The recommendations were approved by the Board in June 2008:

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-26jun08-en.htm#_Toc76113171


Nearly 5 years ago :-)


The relevant recommendation with respect to the use of registrars is number 19:

        "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering 
domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars."


The relevant discussion in the final report stated:

"Recommendation 19 Discussion -- Registries must use only ICANN accredited 
registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such 
accredited registrars.

 i. This recommendation is supported by all GNSO Constituencies and Ms Doria.

 ii. There is a long history associated with the separation of registry and 
registrar operations for top-level domains. The structural separation of 
VeriSign's registry operations from Network Solutions registrar operations 
explains much of the ongoing policy to require the use of ICANN accredited 
registrars.

 iii. In order to facilitate the stable and secure operation of the DNS, the 
Committee agreed that it was prudent to continue the current requirement that 
registry operators be obliged to use ICANN accredited registrars. 

 iv. ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement has been in place since 
2001[77]. Detailed information about the accreditation of registrars can be 
found on the ICANN website[78]. The accreditation process is under active 
discussion but the critical element of requiring the use of ICANN accredited 
registrars remains constant.

 v. In its CIS, the RyC noted that "...the RyC has no problem with this 
recommendation for larger gTLDs; the requirement to use accredited registrars 
has worked well for them. But it has not always worked as well for very small, 
specialized gTLDs. The possible impact on the latter is that they can be at the 
mercy of registrars for whom there is no good business reason to devote 
resources. In the New gTLD PDP, it was noted that this requirement would be 
less of a problem if the impacted registry would become a registrar for its own 
TLD, with appropriate controls in place. The RyC agrees with this line of 
reasoning but current registry agreements forbid registries from doing this. 
Dialog with the Registrars Constituency on this topic was initiated and is 
ongoing, the goal being to mutually agree on terms that could be presented for 
consideration and might provide a workable solution."


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin