Re: [registrars] FW: MUSEUM proposal

[CORE Secretariat <secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Francesco,

You are probably right that there may be better ways
than what .museum proposes: we all have good ideas
and are free to propose them.

But that it is not our job as registrars to decide how
.museum should operate. Nor is it ICANN's job. It is the
job of the TLD sponsor.

We are of course entitled to object if we are affected
by the proposal. But .museum proposal has zero economic
consequence on registrars. So we should not object.

There is another issue, of course:

We registrars are the *beneficiaries* of a problematic rule.
It is close to a cartel. If antitrust authorities do
not stop us from obliging users go through members of our
providers' club, it is probably because, after all, the
DNS is a small market.

Bigger private providers' clubs were told by antitrust
authorities that their argument of "professionalism" etc.
does not make it legal to operate a cartel-like scheme
based on accreditation.

Regards,

Werner


Nicrelations wrote:
> Hi Werner, 
> I have to disagree with you, and as John Berryhill said there are 
> other ways of handling the eligibility checks and make the
> procedures more easy to handle for all the parts involved.
> Also .aero has an established link with its industry, and so 
> does .travel, although I agree that their target audience is
> definitely wider than the one of .museum. The fact that
> Musedoma has a direct link to International Council of
> Museums does not necessarily mean that either Musedoma
> or the Council know how domains work, and I think they
> probably have better things to do than spend resources
> to research the subject.
> I think that the recent events clearly show the need for 
> a more professional approach to domain registration and
> management and for better control over who takes the
> responsibility of acting on behalf of the registrant:
> being ICANN accredited SHOULD mean that a registrar does
> fulfil a number of criterias and SHOULD be a guarantee for
> both registrant and registries that they are dealing with
> a reliable professional.
> There is for sure a lot to do to improve the way ICANN 
> accredits registrars today and to implement a clear audit
> system to make sure registrars keep on fulfilling the
> requirements also after they get their accreditation.
> However, opening for exception to this rule, when really 
> what we should do is enhance its ability to be promptly
> and effectively enforced, would only pave the way to more
> problems in the future.
> Best Regards
> Francesco Cetraro
> Ascio Technologies inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Werner Staub [mailto:werner@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 22. marts 2007 22:20
> To: Nicrelations
> Cc: Registrar Constituency
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: MUSEUM proposal
>
>
> Hi Francesco,
>
> > ICANN should definitely spend more time investigating on why this
>  > tld has proved to be a failure, rather than trying to accomödate
> > this kind of requests. If Musedoma is not able to manage this 
>  > tld properly, maybe someone else should take over.
>
> The primary reasons why .museum has has trouble is precisely the fact 
> that ICANN requires museums to register via the detour of 
> ICANN-accredited registrars, even though they have an established link 
> to International Council of Museums.
>
> In this respect, the proposal attempts to fix one of the known flaws of 
> .museum.
>
> The best way to reform the ICANN registrar accreditation concept is 
> probably to allow community-based TLDs to have their own non-ICANN 
> registrars if they wish, provided that they accept the ICANN registrars.
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner


--
---
CORE Internet Council of Registrars   http://corenic.org
WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel +4122 929-5744 Fax +4122 929-5745 secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxx