RE: [registrars] Regarding introducing registry services

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul:

Point of clarification. The DoC approval process for new registry services
is only in connection with the VeriSign registry .COM and .NET registry
contracts because they are still a party to those agreements. If my memory
serves me correct after the next rebid .NET (2005) and .COM (2007) the DoC
would no longer be a party to those registry agreements.

The only role the DoC has in the other gTLD contracts was when they
authorized them to go into the root and IANA related changes, i.e. changes
to primary and/or secondary name serves.

You are correct that not all TLDs are created equal. In fact not even ICANN
sanctioned TLDs are the same. Take for example, the distinction between
unsponsored and sponsored gTLD. Unlike the unsponsored registry agreements
which have Appendix G to set registry fees, I am not aware of any
corresponding component in the sponsored registry agreements. Things could
get very interesting now that ICANN has allowed for profit entities to bid
for sponsored TLDs. I think this was the right move but the registry
contracts may now need to be changed to provide a safeguard for registrars
with regard to fees/services that sponsored registries may charge/provide.

These are my own personal opinions, I will defer to Paul or John answer on
behalf of ICANN.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:21 PM
> To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Paul Twomey; roseman@xxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Regarding introducing registry services
>
>
> Bruce, I agree that is a basic question.
>
> Since both DoC and ICANN say they need to approve new services
> for gTLDs, I
> can only conclude that it was intended that some TLDs were to be
> one way and
> some the other way.
> For example, ccTLDs were more like an SLD in that they could put in *
> records and such,
> and the 7 "new" TLDs and gTLDs (ok, all non-ccTLDs) were more
> like operating
> on
> behalf of ICANN/USG, and couldn't just do whatever they wanted
> with DNS and
> the TLD,
> like SLD registrants in the .com TLD could do, for example.
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Paul Twomey; roseman@xxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] Regarding introducing registry services
>
>
> Hello John,
>
> A question has come up a few times in the registrars constituency in
> relation to the existing registry agreements.
>
> The basic question I think is:
>
> Is the current registry agreement intended to be in the form of an
> outsourced arrangement where a registry operator provides a specified
> service (e.g domain name registration) for a specified price (e.g $6)
> for the ICANN community, OR is the registry agreement intended to be in
> the form of a licence right to operate a particular TLD and generate
> revenue based on the services possible from such a role (subject to some
> maximum price controls on core services)?
>
> If it is the former, then the ICANN community could decide that a new
> service is desirable, and this could be subject to some sort of RFP to
> provide.
>
> If it is the latter, then the licence for a tld is similar to the
> licence a registrar provides a registrant for a second level domain (ie
> anything is possible at third (xyz.abc.com) and subsequent levels within
> the standards of the DNS).   Registrants may currently operate their own
> nameservers for the second level names, and these nameservers may vary
> in their behaviour.  Registrants can decide how they wish to allocated
> names at levels below the second level (e.g xyz.au.com).
>
> I would like to see this question addressed within the registry services
> issues report.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>