RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

I don't have a problem with the concept of accrediting registry providers.
I just have a hard time imaging anyone going to the trouble and expense
without a solid deal in place. So if a delegant must have an accredited
provider on board to apply, I still see it only being the existing
providers. And if the delegant wants to be their own provider it shouldn't
be a two step process: 1) become an accredtied provider; 2) propose the
gTLD. As long as that's not what is intended here, I'll be on board with it.

On the protocols statement, it's the "not create new ones" phrase that
bothers me. I propose a friendly amendment to that part of the ballot so it
would simply read:

"- that delegants and operators be encouraged to leverage existing registry
protocols"

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
   From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
   Date: Wed, April 2, 2003 8:06 pm
   To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@godaddy.com>, "'Michael D. Palage'"
<michael@palage.com>,
         <registrars@dnso.org>

   > I understand the purpose, but in practice, will this require
   > gTLD applicants to have a prior arrangement with an
   > accredited provider? Or only that if approved, they must
   > either become or use an accredited provider? I'm not sure I'm
   > getting how this will facilitate competition. It seems a
   > little like the chicken or the egg issue.

   It simply builds incentives for prospective delegants to choose from
   operators other than the Neulevel, Afilias or Verisign. If every
   single new delegant chooses an existing operator, then we don't see
   the real benefits of competition - we end up creating a bunch of new
   TLDs, as you point out, that each of us care about to differing
   degrees. Registrars saw a lot of benefits that were created when
   Neulevel and Afilias pushed the envelope. Verisign has mostly caught
   up now and we've stopped seeing a lot of the benefits. We need more
   players - technical and otherwise.

   >
   > >- that delegants and operators be encouraged to leverage existing
   > registry
   > >protocols and not create new ones
   >
   > This seems to imply that the best protocols already exist. I
   > agree that life would be much easier if we had a single
   > protocol to deal with. On the other hand I would not want to
   > stifle innovation and potential future benefits to save a
   > little time today. Besides, so far, even with EPP, each
   > implementation has been different. I don't think we could
   > support this ballot with this comment as part of it.
   >

   No, it implies that new operators should be encouraged to use existing
   protocols unless they have demonstrably better ideas. These are the
   same rules that we played by in the last round and instead of creating
   a bunch of new RRP registries, we ended up with a bunch of players
   that worked together and settled on a better idea. We should continue
   to encourage this spirit of cooperation.

   If you have a better way to get these points across, please put
   forward an amendment - positive criticism is always a useful tool for
   change.

   -rwr