[registrars] Registries must use Registrars

[Ward Benjamin]

I agree with both points.

Thanks,
Ben

Rob Hall wrote:
> Ward,
> 
> 2 things:
> 
> 1.  .jp is a country code and therefore does not use ICANN certified
> registrars.  They can do basically whatever they like for how a domain
> is registered.  Most of the progressive countries use a similar
> Registrar model to ICANN.
> 
> 2.  This is not a pre-list of reserved names.  That already happened to
> my understanding, and is in previous appendicies.  For example, ICANN
> reserves ICANN.tld in all new TLD's.  Most registries reserve DNS.tld
> and WWW.tld etc.
> 
> I believe this to be something different than a reserved list.  I think
> this may be that the Registry doesn't want to use Registrars for the
> first 5,000 names.  This should not be allowed.
> 
> I have heard registies say they are worried about having no Registrars.
> But that has never happened.  To make matters worse, Registries now want
> in their contracts that they have the right to pick and choose which
> Registrars they want to take.  Now we have a Registry wanting to deal
> directly with Registrants.  I believe that would break the competitive
> model currently in place.  Registries are a monopoly that should have a
> competitive layer of Registrars dealing with Registrants.  Period.
> 
> While I might be open to as a last resort, if a Registry can't find even
> one Registrar to do business with them, the ability for them to deal
> directly, it would only be in that rare case.  And certainly not if they
> have said no to dealing with a Registrar who wants to deal with them.
> Until that happens (and I believe it never will), I don't believe we
> should be building it into ICANN contracts.
> 
> And I will state here and now, that we will be a Registrar for any TLD
> that can't find anyone else to work with. We will do whatever is
> necessary to Register domains within their new tld and help them grow.
> I bet we are not alone.  
> 
> To allow a Registry to end-run around the competitive layer of
> Registrars is wrong, and should never be considered.  
> 
> The Registrar constituency must stand strong, as we have seen what
> happens when one little break in the dam sneaks into a Registry
> contract.  Every other Registry wants the same clause, and
> consideration.
> 
> We must not allow this to occur.
> 
> Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ward Benjamin
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:38 PM
> To: Robert F. Connelly
> Cc: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [alerts] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed
> .MUSEUM sTLD Registry Agreement Posted for Public Comment
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. However, I have seen this before with .jp domains and JPRS. If
> I remember that case involved the registry taking all country and Japan
> prefecture and city names.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ben
> 
> Robert F. Connelly wrote:
>> At 09:09 AM 3/3/2007 Saturday  -0500, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
>>> FYI ? please pay particular attention to Appendix S, which permits 
>>> the .museum Sponsor to register up to 5,000 names directly with the 
>>> Registry Operator.
>> Dear Jon:  One basic "rule* from time immemorial was that the 
>> registries were not to be registrars.  Regards, BobC
>>
> 
>