ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process

  • To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:51:25 +1000
  • Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcVbzXZzp4SoGwQwStimq69aTrkxQAJLmlIA
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process

Hello Tim,

> The term "ICANN" is used throughout the process description. 
> What does that mean? If it means the ICANN Staff, then that 
> should be made clear at the outset of the document. 

In the recommendations, ICANN refers to the legal entity that is the
contractual party in the agreement with registries.

ICANN the legal entity employs staff that would be responsible for
managing the process.

If an ICANN supporting organisation or advisory committee is involved -
it will be explicitly mentioned.

> Step 4 reads: 
> "ICANN may seek expert advice during the preliminary 
> determination period (from entities or persons subject to 
> confidentiality agreements) on the competition, Security or 
> Stability implications of the registry service in order to 
> make its "preliminary determination." To the extent ICANN 
> determines to disclose confidential information to any such 
> experts, it will provide notice to Registry Operator (or sponsoring
> organisation) of the identity of the expert(s) and the 
> information it intends to convey." 

The experience of the ICANN staff to date, has been that most requests
are quite trivial in nature - e.g change of address etc.   So "must" get
external advice may raise costs unnecessarily.

The intent is that where there is a matter that may impact registrars,
or Internet end users, that some external advice should be sought.

With respect to advice on Security or stability - I expect such advice
to come form members of the Standing Panel.

With respect to advice on competition - I expect this to come from
external legal counsel.

I will get "expert advice" specified in more detail in the final

> This section should read that "ICANN must seek expert 
> advice." Or at the very least, that "ICANN should seek expert 
> advice." And Expert Advice should then be defined. 
> I see this as the most critical part of the process. If a 
> misjudgment is made at this step the rest of the process is 
> moot and the ICANN Staff finds itself embroiled in another 
> mess. This step should not be fast-tracked. Given past 
> events, I can't imagine why the Staff, the Board, or anyone 
> would want this step to work any other way.
> Regarding the Registrars' Constituency statement, that was 
> never voted on by the members, correct? 

Yes.  It has always been in draft form.

The registrars constituency has a poor record on formally voting on
policy statements.

Most votes have been related to electing officials.


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