RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [council] FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT - Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services]

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

Ross,

There was a lot of constructive feedback provided by the registrars in
Tunisia during Barbara's presentation. I do not know if anyone was keeping
minutes of the Registrar meeting but if they were this may be a good
reference point for you.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:42 PM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] [Fwd: [council] FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES
> STATEMENT - Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services]
>
>
> Ken Stubbs as a Registry representative to the Names Council has posted
> this statement to the Council mailing list and presumably forwarded it
> to the ICANN staff.
>
> I also note that I have not received much feedback from our constituency
> concerning our response to the staff request, specifically; "The
> perspective that would be most useful to  me, and that I'm most lacking
> at this time, is how your constituency will  be affected by there being
> in place a process for the introduction of new  registry services. I'm
> seeking your collective views on how the process  should ideally be
> shaped to most adequately reflect the concerns of the  Registrars."
>
> Time grows increasingly precious as far as this initiative is concerned.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	[council] FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT - Regarding
> the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services
> Date: 	Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:33:20 -0500
> From: 	Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: 	names council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>   Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:55 PM
>   Subject:      Unsponsored gTLD Registries Statement on Registry Services
>
>
>   UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT
>
>   Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services
>
>   The gTLD Registries Constituency of the Generic Names Supporting
>   Organization is currently comprised of the three Sponsored and six
>   Unsponsored Registry Operators, including Afilias, Ltd. (.info),
>   DotCooperation, LLC (.coop), Global Name Registry (.name), Musedoma
>   (.museum), NeuLevel, Inc. (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org),
>   RegistryPro (.pro), SITA (.aero) and VeriSign (.com & .net).
>
>   On behalf of the six Unsponsored gTLD Registry Operators, we submit the
>   following statement set forth below:
>
>   BACKGROUND
>
>   Each of the gTLD Registry Operators has entered an agreement with the
>   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers which governs the
>   relationship between ICANN and the individual registry operator.  It
>   should be noted that only the Unsponsored Registry Agreements have any
>   provisions regarding "Registry Services."  In addition, the Unsponsored
>   Registry contracts only provide that ICANN consent to the price of a new
>   "Registry Service" so long as the operation as such service
> does not truly
>   threaten the technical stability of the domain name system .  While this
>   constituency recognizes the need for an ICANN procedure for prompt
>   technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry
> Service", with
>   a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach, the
>   contracts themselves do not give ICANN or any third party, including any
>   of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or
>   Advisory Committees, the ability to consent to any other aspects of
>   "Registry Services."  The applicable contracts do not provide a role for
>   ICANN with respect to prices or specifications for services or products
>   provided by registries that are not "Registry Services" as
> defined in such
>   agreements.
>
>    To the extent that ICANN wishes to increase its scope and/or
> powers with
>   respect to "Registry Services", it may only do so in accordance with its
>   agreements or with the express written consent of those with
> which it has
>   contracts (namely, the Registry Operators and Accredited
> Registrars).  In
>   addition, the meaning of such agreements will be governed according to
>   applicable legal principles. It cannot be said that any
> interpretation by
>   one party after having entered the agreement is binding on the
> other party
>   or evidences ambiguity.  In addition, interpretations offered by third
>   parties have no particular relevance in determining the meaning intended
>   by the parties to the relevant agreements.   To the extent that
> there are
>   any disputes over the meaning of any terms within ICANN's
> Agreements with
>   the registries, there is a built in dispute resolution process in the
>   contracts.  Such dispute resolution does not involve any of the GNSO
>   Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or even Advisory
>   Committees.
>
>   SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES REPORT
>
>   The gTLD Registries Constituency is extremely concerned about the issues
>   raised in the "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff Manager's
> Issues Report
>   for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified
>   Registry Services."  Not only are most of those issues irrelevant to the
>   introduction of "Registry Services" as defined in the
> applicable contracts
>   with gTLD Unsponsored Registries, but it also inappropriately suggests
>   that parties other than ICANN and the gTLD Registry Operators might be
>   entitled to prevent the introduction of otherwise lawful new "Registry
>   Services."  As stated above, many of these issues involve contractual
>   interpretation that involve only the parties to those contracts, and not
>   the ICANN community as a whole.  ICANN may not unilaterally, or through
>   the policy development process, promulgate rules or regulations
>   interpreting these agreements without the consent of the registry
>   operators.  Any attempt to do so would be considered a
> violation of those
>   agreements and subject to the dispute resolution process set
> forth in such
>   agreements.
>
>   It is the gTLD Registries Constituency's view that many of the topics
>   identified in the "Issues Report" should not be addressed by the GNSO,
>   Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees, but by the ICANN
>   staff/board and the gTLD Registry Operators.
>
>   IMPACT OF PDP PROCESS ON GTLD REGISTRIES
>
>   To state the obvious, if there is any one constituency of the GNSO that
>   this PDP process potentially affects, it is the gTLD Registries,
>   specifically the Unsponsored Registries.  Not only does the introduction
>   of "Registry Services" impact the competitive environment in which we
>   operate, the investment which we are able to make in our businesses, but
>   ultimately, it affects the very survival of our businesses.  Without a
>   procedure for prompt technical and security impact review of proposed
>   "Registry Service" with a predictable, streamlined and appropriate
>   market-based approach by which ICANN exercises its rights with
> respect to
>   Registry Services, the future of domain name registries is in jeopardy.
>
>   RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
>
>   As the ICANN has posted only a portion of the Issues Report, the gTLD
>   Registries reserve the right to comment on the complete Issues Reports,
>   when such report is released.  In addition, the comments
> contained herein
>   do not address the substance of the issues raised in the report, but
>   merely provide, as we were asked to do, an impact statement.
>
>
>   Afilias, Ltd.
>   Global Name Registry
>   NeuLevel, Inc.
>   Public Interest Registry
>   RegistryPro, Inc.
>   VeriSign, Inc.
>
>
>   Jeffrey J. Neuman
>   Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency
>   e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>                         -rwr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                  "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
>                                             All life is an experiment.
>                              The more experiments you make the better."
>                          - Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
> Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
> My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
>