RE: [registrars] FW: MUSEUM proposal

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

What I suggest is that instead of making exceptions to 7.1(b) or similar
clauses in other agreements, make an exception to 7.1(c) or similar
clauses in other agreements. 

Given Paul Twomey's recent post, it amazes me that the Staff or Board
would actually consider circumventing the use of accredited registrars
in this way. Perhaps the accreditation process needs shoring up, and no
doubt enforcement needs to be fixed. But the answer certainly isn't
dumping the whole thing and allowing organizations not bound to
applicable rules and consensus policies to register names directly.


Tim 
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: MUSEUM proposal
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, March 23, 2007 8:37 am
To: "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 
 Hello All,
 
 
 >>> I too suggested that the .museum sponsor simply become
 accredited as a registrar. 
 
 Note there are actually two provisions in some of the registry
 agreements.
 E.g from .biz:
 
 
 7.1 (b) Registry Operator Shall Not Act as Own Registrar. Registry
 Operator shall not act as a registrar with respect to the TLD. This
 shall not preclude Registry Operator from registering names within the
 TLD to itself through a request made to an ICANN-accredited registrar.
 
 7.1 (c) Restrictions on Acquisition of Ownership or Controlling
 Interest in Registrar. Registry Operator shall not acquire, directly or
 indirectly, control of, or a greater than fifteen percent ownership
 interest in, any ICANN-accredited registrar.
 
 
 The second provision above may put a limitation on a sponsor becoming
 accredited as a registrar.
 
 Regards,
 Bruce