Re: [council] Council Agenda - registry services

[Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, at 10:54 [=GMT+0100], Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Ref Item 5: Issues report on Registry services [60 mins]
>
> We do not seem to have this report despite the assurance of the extract 
> posted on the ICANN site:
> http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/draft-registry-svcs-report-31oct03.htm
> "the posting of the full Issues Report will be postponed until no later than 
> 7 November 2003".
>
> The ICANN by laws call for a staff issues report "in 15 days".
>
> I would like to raise "issue report expectations" at the meeting tomorrow.

It may be that as a newcomer to the Council, I don't understand a
thing about this. I am quite amazed about the excerpts that are
published on the ICANN website (URL mentioned by Philip). To me it
looks like a list of leading questions. Will some analysis of the
issue come later??

What amazes me even more, is that there is no definition of what we
are talking about. What are 'new registry services'? Give me an
example? WLS? What else? I can think of nothing.

If I understand it, this whole issue originated in the Verisign
wildcard 'experiment'. That is not what one commonly would describe as
a new service at all. For the customers of Verisign (the registrars)
do not buy it. SiteFinder was really the change of the behaviour of an
old service, vid. DNS.

I do not understand why this problem is tackled by giving it a
misleading name. I know Verisign called it a new service. But why do
we?

Marc