Re: [registrars] .COOP agreement

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think I've been pretty clear on this in the past. Managing policy 
development for gTLDs is a function of the GNSO and ICANN itself. This 
power should not be delegated away to sponsored operators or any gTLD 
for that matter. To the extent that it is, CORE would benefit from less 
regulation as a registry operator. In its role as a registry operator, I 
would expect CORE to receive much more sympathy for its position from 
the registry constituency than the registrar constituency.
In other words, Werner has taken a clearly self-interested position on 
behalf of CORE, one that isn't consistent with the general interests of 
gTLD registrars who aren't operating registries. The argument presented 
and the conflict of interest it raises are both pretty stale.
Marcus Faure wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> it is OK to take a closer look at where people are coming from, though
> I had hoped that the community support we provided over the past years
> has given us some credibility. In any case, "closer look" should also
> include the argument itself. I do not feel comfortable that the
> statement is rejected just because it comes from someone who knows
> both sides of the business.
>
> Yours,
> Marcus
>
>
> > CORE Secretariat wrote:
> >
> > > I conclude that this phrase actually does deserve to be in all sponsored 
> > > TLD agreements.
> > As a registry operator, I'm not surprised to see CORE take this position.
> >
> > For the rest of us who do business as registrars and work with 
> > registrants, the existence of these exemptions is a concern.
> > ICANN has no right to delegate away the policy responsibilities of the 
> > community via its contracts with registry operators and - yet it 
> > continues to do so.
> > -ross