RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Statement on New Registry Services

["Mark McFadden" <mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tony:

One other thought.

At the second to last paragraph I would insert a new paragraph that reads:

"The ISP community must be a central part of the PDP process and any process
that evaluates any future registry service offering.  If they are not
explicit participants in the process, they must be able to participate by
identifying appropriate expert analysts who can represent the operational
interests of ISPs."

What do you think?

Mark


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Antonio Harris
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 1:35 PM
To: mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ispcp@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP Statement on New Registry Services

Excellent wording! I support

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McFadden" <ireland@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ispcp@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: [ispcp] ISPCP Statement on New Registry Services


> Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services Internet 
> Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency
>
> The ISPCP Constituency has a direct connection with a significant body 
> of Internet stakeholders.  Our customers - those people connected to 
> the Internet - are the people and organizations most affected by 
> unexpected changes in the Internet.  This includes the introduction of 
> new or
modified
> registry services.  Naturally, the ISPCP constituency needs to be a 
> significant contributor to the Registry Services PDP process.
>
> ISPs are in a unique position to help guide policy development on new 
> registry services. As those who have been largely responsible for the 
> stability of the Internet, we believe that it is vitally important 
> that
the
> GNSO and its Council balance the need to move quickly on potential
registry
> services while thoughtfully thinking through operational and legal 
> impacts of any recommendations. Our constituency actively supports the 
> principle
of
> maintaining the stability that the Internet has always enjoyed.
>
> Specifically, we believe that there is a requirement for technical,
security
> and stability reviews for any newly proposed registry service.  In
addition,
> we believe that any significant change to registry services - that 
> significantly changes or alters fundamental functions of DNS related 
> services - should also be subject to an explicit and extensive 
> security, stability and technical review.
>
> No other group in the GNSO is as well positioned as the ISPCP to
coordinate
> the technical evaluation of the protocol and operational impacts of a 
> proposed change to registry services.  Our constituency works daily 
> with both the protocol standards that make the DNS work and is fully 
> aware of
the
> operational issues that are not part of the protocols, but which are 
> embedded in the operational behavior of Internet protocols and services.
>
> Fundamentally, our constituency believes that:
>
> " No new registry service should be introduced without an explicit 
> evaluation of its technical, stability and security implications; " No 
> significant changes to registry services should take place that have 
> the potential to significantly change the behaviour of underlying 
> Internet services; " The ISPCP constituency should be a central 
> contributor to any discussion of the technical implications of the 
> introduction of new
registry
> services;
> " All constituencies should be bound by the "principle of least 
> astonishment" in the development of new services that affect the
foundation
> protocols of the Internet; and,
> " All constituencies should be bound by principles of operational 
> security and stability for the Internet's user community.
>
> On behalf of the ISPCP Constituency,
>
> Mark McFadden
> ISPCP Secretariat
>
>