RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Statement on New Registry Services

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

Mark
Thanks for drafting the text, it sums up the ISPCP position very nicely.
I'd certainly support it.

My one outstanding question to the Constituency, is whether we should
also express support for the draft issues report now?
Does anyone have any problems with the current draft?

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 10 November 2003 20:02
To: mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ispcp@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP Statement on New Registry Services


Thats fine with me!

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McFadden" <mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Antonio Harris'" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ispcp@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Statement on New Registry Services


> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>