DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Constituency Position - .ORG

I do not think we are attempting to undermine the work of the Task Force
just making very clear that all ICANN Registrars want to continue to
participate in providing registration services in the .ORG TLD.

Elana originally sent me a draft of the proposal which was discussed during
the Executive Committee call on Monday. We didn't seem any harm in
reiterating this statement because of the importance to our members.
Although Section 2d of the proposal states that ICANN Accredited Registrars
should be able to continue to provide services for registrants, I believe
discussions by other constituencies/interest groups to alter the
sponsor/unsponsored nature of the proposal makes it important for the
registrars viewpoint not to be lost.

Ken did not object during our weekly call yesterday. The Executive Committee
has included all Names Council representatives in our weekly call to assist
in better coordination. Again I do not believe that this undermines the
original work of the original Task Force but just goes to address other
issues/proposals that may be taking place after the Task Force proposal was

Ken can you provide any additional insight?

How do other registrars feel on this issue?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:09 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: 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....
> "2d. Registrars
> 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
> taken place.
> 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.
> -rwr
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> To: <registrars@dnso.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.
> If
> > there are no major substantive objectives this message will be submitted
> to
> > the public forum that has been created. Because of the pending deadline
> line
> > 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
> registry
> > should be sponsored or unsponsored, but we take note of the
> fact that the
> > Business Constituency recommends a sponsored TLD.  In view of the
> different
> > roles and rights of ICANN-Accredited Registrars in sponsored versus
> > unsponsored TLDs, the Registrar Constituency is concerned that
> the rights
> of
> > 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
> that
> > all ICANN stakeholders appear to agree that current .org registrants
> should
> > 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
> top-level
> > domain.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>