Re: [registrars] Position Paper??

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>]

Thanks for your rapid and supportive reply.....

Michael, may we take you up on your offer to draft a brief report for
circulation/approval by the constituency, taking into the comments that have
been made.

Thanks to all again......

Best regards

Paul

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> I have a list of those consensus items (see below) and can put them together
> in a report rather quickly. I feel a report like this would be similar to
> the ISPC and Business Constituency. I do not believe that we can objectively
> create a report like the IPC ranking the proposals because of all of the
> registrars participating in various proposal.
>
> • Must be new TLDs.
> • Must be generic TLDs in testbed.
> • Must be chartered TLDs in testbed.
> • All ICANN accredited registrars must be able to provide registration
> services in any new TLDs.
> • Registrars favor use of existing RRP protocol for shared registries.
> • ICANN must develop criteria for evaluating registries during testbed
> period.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Paul M. Kane
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:42 AM
> To: Registrars List
> Subject: [registrars] Position Paper??
>
> Morning all,
>
> I note the IPC, ISPC and Business Constituencies have all submitted
> comments on the introduction of new TLDs.
>
> Is the Registrar Constituency going to submit a position paper too?? I
> recall we had rough consensus in Yokohama on a number of issues.........
>
> See you in LA
>
> Best
>
> Paul