[registrars] RE: RGP Implementation - .ORG

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce - will do.  Will you be in Carthage if registrars have an interest in following up in person, as well?

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Beckwith [mailto:bbeckwith@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 4:19 PM
To: Elana Broitman
Subject: RGP Implementation - .ORG


Elana,

As you know, at this time, registry operators are not allowed to join
the Registrar Constituency mailing list, so I ask for your assistance in
posting this message to the list as soon as you have the opportunity.

Thanks.

Regards,

Bruce


Dear Registrars,

On behalf of Public Interest Registry (PIR), I appreciate the
opportunity to clarify several misconceptions that have just been posted
to the Registrar Constituency mailing list.

Firstly, PIR is the registry operator that has been granted the contract
to operate the .ORG TLD by ICANN.  PIR has full responsibility and
authority over the .ORG TLD, as specified in the ICANN contracts.

Having stated this, it is apparently confusing to some as to what
Afilias' role is with .ORG.  PIR has chosen Afilias Global Registry
Services as the outsource registry systems provider for .ORG.  Afilias
has done an outstanding job to date, yet I would like to remind everyone
that PIR is the entity responsible for all management and policy
decisions regarding the .ORG TLD, therefore, you should address any
concerns and comments regarding the management of the .ORG TLD directly
to PIR.

As noted in the posting to the Registrar Constituency mailing list
(http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00622.html)
there is some concern about the methods used to debit and credit
registrar accounts.

I invite you to review the Bucharest RGP implementation documents, found
at http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm.  The RGP
implementation for .ORG followed the guidance found in the ICANN
documents.  As you will note during the review of the documents, there
is no specificity about when a charge or debit must occur.  As you may
also know, each registry operator interpreted the Bucharest documents as
they felt would best serve their customers.  Unfortunately, due to the
tight time constraints built into the PIR/ICANN contracts, there was not
sufficient time for PIR to request substantive feedback from you, our
registrar customers, on the RGP implementation.  We have received some
very valuable feedback since our original release in June, and that was
to endeavor to automate the process so that you could increase customer
satisfaction to your customers.  That process has been announced and is
underway.

Please consider the following request:  PIR would be very interested in
comments regarding our processes and policies.  If you can detail
suggested changes, we are pleased to consider them.  It is our intent to
be a leader in registry services, and that is not possible without your
assistance and feedback.  To that end, I would also encourage you to
complete the registrar survey that was recently sent to you, and return
it to PIR so that we can incorporate your comments on a range of issues.
If you need an additional copy, please send me a note off-list.  

Be assured that PIR is ready and willing to make changes to our
processes and systems to better serve the community.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Bruce


Bruce W. Beckwith
VP, Operations
Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Avenue
Suite 102A
Reston, VA  20190

v:  +1 703.464.7005 x105
f:  +1 703.783.8287

bbeckwith@xxxxxxx