[registrars] Regarding introducing registry services

[elliot noss]

I have read these contracts, especially the .com agreement, many times 
over the past couple years (I know, I know, I should get a hobby) and to 
me this issue has always been clear on its face. This is a 
fee-for-service contract.

I have raised this in numerous public forums and am thrilled to see 
Bruce formally putting it on the table. I believe it is the elephant in 
the room and we need to make this the first (second and third) issue 
that is dealt with when discussing registry services.

We need be very careful that we have the discussion "should new registry 
services be introduced" rather than "how should new registry services be 
introduced". I have seen the registries cleverly moving the discussion 
to the latter which subsumes the former. We need deal with these issues 
sequentially.

To Tim and Paul (who are clearly fighting the good fight in their posts) 
I caution you (and remember we have our discussions publically which is 
a HUGE advantage to those opposed to our positions) lets not negotiate 
with ourselves. Lets agree that we feel these are fee-for-service 
contracts and lets let ICANN and the registries try and demonstrate 
otherwise. Full stop. Otherwise they will deal with the points you raise 
individually, not the meta-point, and their task will be easier.

Just my thoughts.

Regards

Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Bruce,
> 
> Section 3.6 of the agreements (section 24 in the COM agreement) restrict the
> registry's use of second level names without having to go through ICANN
> accredited registrars, just like any other party. That would seem out of
> place in an agreement meant to be a license.
> 
> Other aspects/provisions also indicate that it was meant to be a service
> provided for a fee.
> 
> For example, the agreement is specifically for the provision of specified
> Registry Services for a Service Term effective on the
> Commencement-of-Service Date. And there are price restrictions/caps on the
> Registry Services provided.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:21 PM
> To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; jeffrey at icann.org
> Cc: Paul Twomey; roseman at icann.org; registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Regarding introducing registry services
> 
> 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
> 
> 


-- 
Elliot Noss
Tucows Inc.
416-538-5494
enoss.blogware.com