RE: [registrars] DRAFT2: registrars constituency statement on approval process for changes in gtld services (Registry Services)
- To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] DRAFT2: registrars constituency statement on approval process for changes in gtld services (Registry Services)
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:37:07 -0600
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <AFEF39657AEEC34193C494DBD717922202FC7B4B@phoenix.mit>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is looking pretty good. Here are my comments and suggestions:
Under term of reference (2), regarding the lead in sentence:
When approving a change ICANN should determine whether:
I suggest that it be changed to:
When approving a change ICANN must determine whether:
Following that in item (c) I would suggest that the phrase "may require" in
the third sentence be replaced with "should include" as follows:
a proposed change in the functional and performance specifications of a
"Registry Service" should include impartial external advice from one or more
I would also suggest that the fifth sentence of (c) be less ambiguous about
its goal and be revised to read:
The terms "operational stability", "reliability", "security" and "global
interoperability" should be more clearly defined in the context of domain
name registries, with examples of changes that could cause problems.
Under term of reference (3) item (a) the second sentence should be revised
This should include legal and/or technical advice in the case of determining
whether a service is a "Registry Service."
Likewise in item (b) the second sentence should be revised to read:
This should include impartial technical expert advice or competition expert
I realize there is a desire for a fast track process. However, I believe
that the decision to fast track a request without at least a cursory
impartial review will open the process to many disputes, appeals, and
Regarding the appeal timelines in term of reference (4):
I do not fully agree with the suggested shorter appeal timeline. If the
appeal window is too short it may result in affected parties more often
opting for legal action instead of using the appeal process.
Also, issues raised in the appeal may not be easily studied or fully
considered in 14 days. ICANN should have enough time for any necessary third
party consultation as needed.
I would recommend that the shorter timeline be stricken from the document.
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:32 AM
Subject: [registrars] DRAFT2: registrars constituency statement on approval
process for changes in gtld services (Registry Services)
I have updated the DRAFT statement following input received since Friday
9 Jan 2004.
This is the second draft.
I have added some text about unsponsored tlds as requested by Werner.
I have added some additional text relating to competition issues.
I require 5 endorsements to be able to put this statement to a vote.
If you support the paper please respond to the list. If you don't
support it, please let me know and I will attempt to accommodate.