[registrars] [Fwd: [council] FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT - Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services]
Michael D. Palage
michael at palage.com
Fri Nov 7 22:38:33 UTC 2003
Ross,
There was a lot of constructive feedback provided by the registrars in
Tunisia during Barbara's presentation. I do not know if anyone was keeping
minutes of the Registrar meeting but if they were this may be a good
reference point for you.
Best regards,
Michael D. Palage
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:42 PM
> To: registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] [Fwd: [council] FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES
> STATEMENT - Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services]
>
>
> Ken Stubbs as a Registry representative to the Names Council has posted
> this statement to the Council mailing list and presumably forwarded it
> to the ICANN staff.
>
> I also note that I have not received much feedback from our constituency
> concerning our response to the staff request, specifically; "The
> perspective that would be most useful to me, and that I'm most lacking
> at this time, is how your constituency will be affected by there being
> in place a process for the introduction of new registry services. I'm
> seeking your collective views on how the process should ideally be
> shaped to most adequately reflect the concerns of the Registrars."
>
> Time grows increasingly precious as far as this initiative is concerned.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] FWD: UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT - Regarding
> the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:33:20 -0500
> From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at digitel.net>
> To: names council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:55 PM
> Subject: Unsponsored gTLD Registries Statement on Registry Services
>
>
> UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES STATEMENT
>
> Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services
>
> The gTLD Registries Constituency of the Generic Names Supporting
> Organization is currently comprised of the three Sponsored and six
> Unsponsored Registry Operators, including Afilias, Ltd. (.info),
> DotCooperation, LLC (.coop), Global Name Registry (.name), Musedoma
> (.museum), NeuLevel, Inc. (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org),
> RegistryPro (.pro), SITA (.aero) and VeriSign (.com & .net).
>
> On behalf of the six Unsponsored gTLD Registry Operators, we submit the
> following statement set forth below:
>
> BACKGROUND
>
> Each of the gTLD Registry Operators has entered an agreement with the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers which governs the
> relationship between ICANN and the individual registry operator. It
> should be noted that only the Unsponsored Registry Agreements have any
> provisions regarding "Registry Services." In addition, the Unsponsored
> Registry contracts only provide that ICANN consent to the price of a new
> "Registry Service" so long as the operation as such service
> does not truly
> threaten the technical stability of the domain name system . While this
> constituency recognizes the need for an ICANN procedure for prompt
> technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry
> Service", with
> a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based approach, the
> contracts themselves do not give ICANN or any third party, including any
> of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or
> Advisory Committees, the ability to consent to any other aspects of
> "Registry Services." The applicable contracts do not provide a role for
> ICANN with respect to prices or specifications for services or products
> provided by registries that are not "Registry Services" as
> defined in such
> agreements.
>
> To the extent that ICANN wishes to increase its scope and/or
> powers with
> respect to "Registry Services", it may only do so in accordance with its
> agreements or with the express written consent of those with
> which it has
> contracts (namely, the Registry Operators and Accredited
> Registrars). In
> addition, the meaning of such agreements will be governed according to
> applicable legal principles. It cannot be said that any
> interpretation by
> one party after having entered the agreement is binding on the
> other party
> or evidences ambiguity. In addition, interpretations offered by third
> parties have no particular relevance in determining the meaning intended
> by the parties to the relevant agreements. To the extent that
> there are
> any disputes over the meaning of any terms within ICANN's
> Agreements with
> the registries, there is a built in dispute resolution process in the
> contracts. Such dispute resolution does not involve any of the GNSO
> Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or even Advisory
> Committees.
>
> SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES REPORT
>
> The gTLD Registries Constituency is extremely concerned about the issues
> raised in the "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff Manager's
> Issues Report
> for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified
> Registry Services." Not only are most of those issues irrelevant to the
> introduction of "Registry Services" as defined in the
> applicable contracts
> with gTLD Unsponsored Registries, but it also inappropriately suggests
> that parties other than ICANN and the gTLD Registry Operators might be
> entitled to prevent the introduction of otherwise lawful new "Registry
> Services." As stated above, many of these issues involve contractual
> interpretation that involve only the parties to those contracts, and not
> the ICANN community as a whole. ICANN may not unilaterally, or through
> the policy development process, promulgate rules or regulations
> interpreting these agreements without the consent of the registry
> operators. Any attempt to do so would be considered a
> violation of those
> agreements and subject to the dispute resolution process set
> forth in such
> agreements.
>
> It is the gTLD Registries Constituency's view that many of the topics
> identified in the "Issues Report" should not be addressed by the GNSO,
> Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees, but by the ICANN
> staff/board and the gTLD Registry Operators.
>
> IMPACT OF PDP PROCESS ON GTLD REGISTRIES
>
> To state the obvious, if there is any one constituency of the GNSO that
> this PDP process potentially affects, it is the gTLD Registries,
> specifically the Unsponsored Registries. Not only does the introduction
> of "Registry Services" impact the competitive environment in which we
> operate, the investment which we are able to make in our businesses, but
> ultimately, it affects the very survival of our businesses. Without a
> procedure for prompt technical and security impact review of proposed
> "Registry Service" with a predictable, streamlined and appropriate
> market-based approach by which ICANN exercises its rights with
> respect to
> Registry Services, the future of domain name registries is in jeopardy.
>
> RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
>
> As the ICANN has posted only a portion of the Issues Report, the gTLD
> Registries reserve the right to comment on the complete Issues Reports,
> when such report is released. In addition, the comments
> contained herein
> do not address the substance of the issues raised in the report, but
> merely provide, as we were asked to do, an impact statement.
>
>
> Afilias, Ltd.
> Global Name Registry
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> Public Interest Registry
> RegistryPro, Inc.
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman at Neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at Neustar.us>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
> All life is an experiment.
> The more experiments you make the better."
> - Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
> Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
> My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
>
More information about the registrars
mailing list