RE: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry about that. Still getting used to this Treo.

To clarify: Perhaps there needs to be tiers of change requests.

I'm concerned about new registry services, not address changes. The
staff should never fast track a registry service without *outside*
advice/input.

Tim


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process
> From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, May 30, 2005 11:42 am
> To: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> Perhaps then there needs to tiers of changes. I don't th
> 
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Revised Registry Approval Process
> > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, May 30, 2005 4:51 am
> > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> > 
> > 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
> > version.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Bruce