RE: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process
- To: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 09:42:42 -0700
- Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Perhaps then there needs to tiers of changes. I don't th
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, May 30, 2005 4:51 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Hello Tim,
> > The term "ICANN" is used throughout the process description.
> > What does that mean? If it means the ICANN Staff, then that
> > should be made clear at the outset of the document.
> In the recommendations, ICANN refers to the legal entity that is the
> contractual party in the agreement with registries.
> ICANN the legal entity employs staff that would be responsible for
> managing the process.
> If an ICANN supporting organisation or advisory committee is involved -
> it will be explicitly mentioned.
> > Step 4 reads:
> > "ICANN may seek expert advice during the preliminary
> > determination period (from entities or persons subject to
> > confidentiality agreements) on the competition, Security or
> > Stability implications of the registry service in order to
> > make its "preliminary determination." To the extent ICANN
> > determines to disclose confidential information to any such
> > experts, it will provide notice to Registry Operator (or sponsoring
> > organisation) of the identity of the expert(s) and the
> > information it intends to convey."
> The experience of the ICANN staff to date, has been that most requests
> are quite trivial in nature - e.g change of address etc. So "must" get
> external advice may raise costs unnecessarily.
> The intent is that where there is a matter that may impact registrars,
> or Internet end users, that some external advice should be sought.
> With respect to advice on Security or stability - I expect such advice
> to come form members of the Standing Panel.
> With respect to advice on competition - I expect this to come from
> external legal counsel.
> I will get "expert advice" specified in more detail in the final
> > This section should read that "ICANN must seek expert
> > advice." Or at the very least, that "ICANN should seek expert
> > advice." And Expert Advice should then be defined.
> > I see this as the most critical part of the process. If a
> > misjudgment is made at this step the rest of the process is
> > moot and the ICANN Staff finds itself embroiled in another
> > mess. This step should not be fast-tracked. Given past
> > events, I can't imagine why the Staff, the Board, or anyone
> > would want this step to work any other way.
> > Regarding the Registrars' Constituency statement, that was
> > never voted on by the members, correct?
> Yes. It has always been in draft form.
> The registrars constituency has a poor record on formally voting on
> policy statements.
> Most votes have been related to electing officials.