[registrars] FW: museum agreement

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Registrars:

I just received the following e-mail from Kurt Pritz about the pending
.museum registry agreement.  Based on various registrar comments last
month, ICANN and the .museum registry have agreed to reduce the number
of names at issue to 4,000 and to reduce the scope of what the registry
could do with them.  From my perspective, the provision is far from
ideal, but sufficiently unique to characteristics of the .museum
registry that it would be difficult to use as a precedent for other
registries. 

Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:pritz@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:54 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Subject: museum agreement

All:

After many email exchanges, discussion and iterations between  
Registrar constituency members, the following contract language has  
been developed for the .museum  registry contract renewal. It  
provides that the .museum can maintain a certain amount of names.  
Many on this list may recall a discussion between the RC and Cary  
Karp in the Lisbon meeting. This language resulted from the  
discussion in that meeting and several off-line exchanges since then.  
It is a combination of those suggestions and so it does not match any  
one set of suggested language.

Substantively, language providing for the "registration" of names was  
removed. Also, the number of names was reduced to 4000. (I think an  
argument for reducing the number more is reasonable however, I also  
think .museum will be among the early users of IDN so there should be  
some allowance for multiples of names.) The new language also sets  
apart .museum from the situations in other registries.

I think this contract language should be approved and, in this forum,  
seek to gain the assent, or at least silence, of registrar  
constituency members on this issue. I don't believe this clause sets  
a precedent. The maintenance of these names is intended to replace  
the wildcard functionality that .museum is currently permitted to  
employ according to their current agreement. No other registry has  
this concession in their agreement so this particular set of reasons  
for providing for maintenance of names will not exist again. Also,  
4000 is still an exceeding small number of names when measured  
against any framework. Additionally, .museum will continue to use  
ICANN accredited registrars when fees are received for registrations.  
Also, .museum is seeking to partner with an existing registrar or  
cause the creation of an accreditation that can handle all  
registration requirements. Presently, the Sponsor is undertaking  
significant organization changes that make it difficult to conclude  
such an arrangement during this period of contract renewal. Therefore  
I believe, this measure, involving just 4000 names, is appropriate.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this and your participation in  
this discussion earlier. It is important to wind this up at his time.  
If you wish to discuss this, please try to reach my on my mobil  
phone: +1-310-400-4184.

Regards,

Kurt



The new language:

"Recognizing that: i) the charter of the .museum top-level domain is  
sufficiently restrictive so that it has appeal to a small,  
identifiable and limited community, and that said restrictions have  
created conditions that substantially limit market demand and as a  
result, registrar uptake; ii) MuseDoma is a not-for-profit entity as  
is the community it is required to serve by the definition of its  
charter; and iii) MuseDoma makes available to its community members  
under certain conditions, at no cost, third-level domain names.   
Therefore, MuseDoma is permitted to maintain up to 4,000 domain names  
directly with the Registry Operator and keep these names under direct  
management for purposes stated in iii) of this Section until the  
conclusion of its designation by ICANN as the Sponsor for the  
Sponsored TLD."