RE: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> it would be preferable to simply proceed 
> with a vote and see where the actual 
> support for the entire document lies.

Ross, I agree for the most part. But I don't think suggested amendments
need to hold anything up. If the TF reps consider the amendment friedly
it can simply be incorporated. If not, the unfriendly amendment can be
included as an option in the vote.


Tim 
 


 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 18, 2006 8:10 am
To: Marcus Faure <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Speaking as a task force representative, The consensus position in 
Wellington is reflected in the document. CORE has had the position you 
decscribe below all along, but does not seem to be supported by a broad 
range of constituency members. Given that the comment period on this 
document has closed, it would be preferable to simply proceed with a 
vote and see where the actual support for the entire document lies. If 
the document does not have the support of a majority of voters, then we 
will need to re-word in order to accommodate whatever compromise needs 
to be made.

Speaking as a Tucows representative, I don't believe that your position 
holds water. sTLDs (presuming they are an appropriate arrangement to 
begin with) do not need any policy making power outside of their 
capability to create, implement, manage and adjust their charter. 
Registration qualification practices (i.e. you must be a lawyer to 
register in this TLD) are not policy matters. Policy matter include 
"what provisioning protocol does this registry use", "what sunrise 
mechanism will this registry use", "what transfer policy should this 
registry use" - all such matters should be determined with ICANN and 
implemented as a standard across all registries who choose to allow 
transfers, automated provisioning and sunrise periods. A more 
prescriptive ICANN might actually implement policy that actually takes 
those choices away from a registry (i.e. no transfers allowed, sunrise 
is mandatory and all provisioning must be done via fax). Whether or not 
these are appropriate choices to be making, it is clear that it is 
ICANN's responsibility, and not the registries, to implement these
policies.

I personally would not vote in favor of a document that recommends that 
the registries get more policy making power (on the basis that whatever 
power they gain, has to come from somewhere - in this case, from ICANN 
where registrars have a strong voice).

Marcus Faure wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I suggest to alter 2b. While this may be appropriate for gTLDs,
> it is not for sTLDs. sTLDs operate in a defined environment with
> special needs, the GNSO has only limited insight. The delegation of
> "certain" policy making decisions is appropriate  - and necessary
> unless you want the sTLD to stall -  provided the policy
> range is well-defined. The problem is to find a definition of the term
> "certain".
> 
> Yours,
> Marcus