RE: [registrars] New Services
- To: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, "Cute, Brian" <bcute@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] New Services
- From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:02:53 -0500
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <E41C9410F002254DABE63033B24E12AEA8468F@VAEXM01>
- Reply-to: <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nice work. Just a couple of comments.
If you read the PDP report, it takes the position that focusing exclusively
on "registry services" would be too narrow, see the following excerpt from
the GNSO Council voted to request that the staff prepare an issue report
under the GNSO PDP. The topic to be considered in the PDP is ?the need for a
predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as
defined in the gtld registry agreements),? but as discussed in more detail
below, that is probably an unnecessarily narrow statement of the relevant
issue. In response to this request,
The current PDP process appears to now have been expanded to cover
"Predictable Procedure for Changes in the Operation of TLD Registries".
What I think is somewhat creative about your flow chart is that the
stability and security issue has been incorporated under the registry
services umbrella, instead of the stability and security umbrella being
placed over the registry services contractual definition.
This also raises the important point that I have been raising that ICANN
needs to strive for contract standardization among registry operators as it
makes it difficult for ICANN and registrars.
I look forward to comments from other registrars regarding your paper.
Michael D. Palage
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cute, Brian
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: [registrars] New Services
Attached is a proposed draft. Please post your comments and edits. Elana
and Bob, should we schedule a follow up conference call to discuss?