[registrars] Regarding Final Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Elana,

> 
> 
> Thank you Ken.  I wonder if our representatives have any 
> explanation regarding the resolution - namely, "monitor 
> community reaction and experiences with the new service" -- 
> does this call for the registrar constituency to provide 
> input regarding its concerns, in addition to the motion that 
> the constituency had passed?
> 

Security and stability concerns should be provided to:

secsac-comment@xxxxxxxxx

Further, the Security and Stability advisory committee will meet
publicly in the Washington, D.C. area on October 7, 2003, for interested
parties to present factual information relevant to the security and
stability of the Internet. Details will be available shortly.

Concerns about the contractual or competition issues should be directed
to ICANN.

The GNSO Council is seeking a formal legal response from the ICANN
General Counsel on whether Sitefinder is considerd to be a registry
service.   The GNSO Council is supporting the process managed by the
Security and Stability Advisory committee to give advice to the ICANN
community on the issue.

Ideas on how improvements in policy would help prevent such a problem
occuring in future should be directed through the GNSO Council
representatives.  I recommend that the GNSO Council give consideration
to forming a policy development process around the "process" of
introducing new registry services in future.  This should be a
discussion point for the meeting in Tunisia.   Verisign do not believe
that the SiteFinder service is a registry service by the way, and
believe that they are currently in compliance with the ICANN agreements
and Internet standards.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Registrars representative on the GNSO Council