Re: [registrars] Constituency Position - .ORG
Wouldn't it make more sense for the constituency to affirm the work of our
NC and TF reps and the positions that they have been taking on this matter
since the beginning?
I brought this up a week ago and never got a response, but the point is
still important. I'm concerned that our public position on this matter and
this minority report are somewhat conflicting. If Ken doesn't feel this way,
then perhaps I'm seeing something that doesn't exist.
To the specifics of the minority report, I believe that our specific request
is fulfilled by Section 2d of the TF Recommendations to the NC....
All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to register names in
.org. However, applicants are encouraged to propose methods of managing the
relationship between the registry and registrars that encourage
differentiation of the domain."
I get the impression that we might be jousting at windmills with this one -
what is the source of this proposal? I ask because its directly relevant to
the weight that we need to give to the proposal. Its one thing if Ken Stubbs
(our TF rep on dotorg) feels that 2d doesn't sufficiently address the needs
of registrars, its completely another thing when this same request comes
from a registrar that wasn't involved in the TF or completely aware of the
issues surrounding the work of the TF.
My feeling is that unless we have a specific and defined objection to the
wording of the current report that we refrain from engaging in a last minute
negotiation on principles that may or may not be relevant to the heart of
the issue. Further, as the constituency has provided the TF with a
tremendous amount of autonomy in negotiating the wording throughout the
course of the TF that we be careful not to disturb the work that has already
In other words, I'd really like to hear from Ken concerning the actual
effectiveness of 2d as endorsed by the NC and the TF before we file a report
questioning the strength of 2d. Failing this, Tucows will remain
unsupportive of a minority report of this nature.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 1:29 PM
Subject: [registrars] Constituency Position - .ORG
> Attached below is a draft statement that the Executive Committee yesterday
> approved sending out to the registrar constituency for comment/approval.
> there are no major substantive objectives this message will be submitted
> the public forum that has been created. Because of the pending deadline
> any comments are needed ASAP.
> Best regards,
> Michael D. Palage
> on behalf of the Registrar Executive Committee
> The Registrar Constituency commends the Names Council Task Force for its
> hard work with regard to the .org registry, and supports its final report.
> The Constituency, however, feels very strongly about an issue that is not
> fully addressed by the report and therefore is filing the following
> supplementary remarks.
> The Task Force does not take a position on whether the future .org
> should be sponsored or unsponsored, but we take note of the fact that the
> Business Constituency recommends a sponsored TLD. In view of the
> roles and rights of ICANN-Accredited Registrars in sponsored versus
> unsponsored TLDs, the Registrar Constituency is concerned that the rights
> ICANN-Accredited Registrars not be abridged if .org is run as a sponsored
> TLD. Furthermore, given that Registrars have been registering .org domain
> names since the beginning of competition in the domain name space, and
> all ICANN stakeholders appear to agree that current .org registrants
> be grandfathered in any future .org registry, the Registrar Constituency
> believes that all ICANN-Accredited Registrars should be afforded the
> opportunity to continue to provide registrar services in the .org
> Simply stated, whether the .org registry is sponsored or unsponsored, all
> ICANN-Accredited Registrars have the right to sponsor (or continue to
> sponsor) .org domain names.