[registrars] Regarding introducing registry services

[Paul Stahura]

Bruce, I agree that is a basic question.

Since both DoC and ICANN say they need to approve new services for gTLDs, I 
can only conclude that it was intended that some TLDs were to be one way and
some the other way.
For example, ccTLDs were more like an SLD in that they could put in *
records and such,
and the 7 "new" TLDs and gTLDs (ok, all non-ccTLDs) were more like operating
on 
behalf of ICANN/USG, and couldn't just do whatever they wanted with DNS and
the TLD,
like SLD registrants in the .com TLD could do, for example.

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 11:15 AM
To: jeffrey at icann.org
Cc: Paul Twomey; roseman at icann.org; registrars at dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Regarding introducing registry services


Hello John,

A question has come up a few times in the registrars constituency in
relation to the existing registry agreements.

The basic question I think is:

Is the current registry agreement intended to be in the form of an
outsourced arrangement where a registry operator provides a specified
service (e.g domain name registration) for a specified price (e.g $6)
for the ICANN community, OR is the registry agreement intended to be in
the form of a licence right to operate a particular TLD and generate
revenue based on the services possible from such a role (subject to some
maximum price controls on core services)?

If it is the former, then the ICANN community could decide that a new
service is desirable, and this could be subject to some sort of RFP to
provide.

If it is the latter, then the licence for a tld is similar to the
licence a registrar provides a registrant for a second level domain (ie
anything is possible at third (xyz.abc.com) and subsequent levels within
the standards of the DNS).   Registrants may currently operate their own
nameservers for the second level names, and these nameservers may vary
in their behaviour.  Registrants can decide how they wish to allocated
names at levels below the second level (e.g xyz.au.com).

I would like to see this question addressed within the registry services
issues report.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin