Re: [council] Request for GNSO to consider processes forintroducing new registry services

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Bruce, Milton,

maybe the first step in the process should be to determine whether the "new 
service" 
is a registry service and therefore in the scope of ICANN or not.

Best,

tom

Am 06.10.2003 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
> 
> Hello Milton,
> 
> > 
> > So we are being asked to conduct "prior review" of all new 
> > registry services? 
> 
> I believe that we are being asked to develop a procedure that ICANN can
> use for introducing new registry services whatever they may be.
> 
> E.g a possible procedure might look like:
> (1) Registry operator notifies ICANN of potential new service
> (2) ICANN refers to procedure for introducing new services which might
> include seeking public comment, and seeking a report from the Security
> and stability committee and/or IAB
> (3) ICANN approves or rejects permission for new service
> (4) Registry operator announces date when service will go live
> 
> The GNSO develops policies, but does not act on each implementation of
> the policy.  E.g The GNSO revised the Transfers Policy that registry and
> registrars must comply with, but we don't act to approve or reject
> individual registrant transfer requests that would be far too slow.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w