ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] New RAA Discussions

  • To: "Tim Cole" <cole@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] New RAA Discussions
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:06:21 +1000
  • Cc: "Dan Halloran" <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcUxngPzU6jDCb4yQMCV4NZP7TNCNgCfCc2A
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] New RAA Discussions

Hello Tim,

> In reviewing the nature of possible revisions to the 
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement with out legal department 
> we've arrived at the conclusion that some of the revisions 
> that have been suggested would most likely require a 
> consensus policy process for approval.  Since that process is 
> constituency driven, not staff driven we believe it would be 
> inappropriate for us to put forth a prospective new RAA until 
> your input has been solicited.

Actually I think we should distinguish between changes that are
"imposed" on registrars (where registrars may or may not approve), from
changes that have the approval of registrars and the support of ICANN

The first type is where the consensus policy is appropriate, whereas the
second type could be changes that registrars and ICANN staff strongly
support.   Note that the second type would need to be consistent with
consensus policies (which are currently in the areas of WHOIS, deleted
names, and transfers).

It would be useful for staff to perhaps provide a list of changes that
"have been proposed" (perhaps by individual registrars) for
consideration by the registrars constituency as a whole.

Bruce Tonkin
Melbourne IT

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>