RE: [registrars] New Services

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

Bruce:

Thanks for the very useful analysis.

Best regards,

Michael







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:47 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] New Services



Hello Mike,

> 
> The current PDP process appears to now have been expanded to 
> cover "Predictable Procedure for Changes in the Operation of 
> TLD Registries".

To be explicit the policy process is for:

"The purpose of this policy development process is to create a policy
concerning the essential characteristics of the process by which ICANN
considers registry operator or sponsor requests for consent or related
contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation
of a gTLD registry. "

The recent focus has been on proposals for new registry services - such
as WLS, but there are other changes such as .name and .pro allowing
registration at the second level that require ICANN approval - I don't
think this is so much a new registry service, but a change in
registration policy (the service is the same - ie the registration of a
domain name).  The .name and .pro changes can probably be dealt with an
an acclerated process, and new services such as WLS require more
thorough analysis.

So the policy development process has been expanded to deal with all
changes where ICANN approval is required.

When developing our constituency statement we need to consider both:
- new registry services
- change to the operation of the registry (e.g a change in the
registry-registrar protocol) where ICANN approved is required (usually
where a material change is made)

There have been some recent changes in operation of registries (e.g the
publishing of the expiry date in the Verisign registry WHOIS ) that has
caused confusion for both registrars and registrants (as this typically
differs from the expiry date published in the registrar WHOIS) where
more consultation would have been useful.


> 
> 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.

Longer term - I think the contractual structure needs to be reviewed -
but this specific policy development does not change the existing
registry contracts.  In my view the registry contracts structure should
be reviewed as part ofa  framework for new gtlds to be developed in
2004.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
As a member of the registrars constituency