[nc-org] protocol specification in the policy
In this case, the prior draft's mention of specific
protocols was criticised by both Louis Touton and Cary
Karp as being unnecessary. The objection was that that
level of detail should be left to the RFP. This is a policy
document, not an RFP.
It was agreed without objection to remove that
language. You were on the call at the time, Ken.
As a substitute and protection, I took it upon myself
to add language specifying that costs to registrars
should be minimized. (You're welcome — oh, that's right,
you never did thank me.)
I have no objection to keeping that language in
or taking it out. (I was the one who put it in there
to begin with, based on comments from Bruce Tonkin.
And by the way, I found those comments on my own,
you never forwarded them to the TF list. You're
If you think it should remain in this draft, take it up
with Louis and Cary. Personally, I believe that
you can trust ICANN to include appropriate
language in the RFP.
I think the more fundamental issue here is how
we go about reaching an agreement we call all live with.
Disorganized and haphazard objections based on a poor
understanding of processes that _you took part in_
are not a good way to do it.
>>> "Ken Stubbs" <email@example.com> 01/04/02 04:10PM >>>
fellow TF members...
the current draft reads:
" Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee to operate the .org registry must
function efficiently and reliably and show its commitment to a high quality
of service for all .org users worldwide, including a commitment to making
registration, assistance and other services available in different time
zones and different languages. The price of registration proposed by the new
entity should be as low as feasible consistent with the maintenance of good
quality service. Protocols used by the new registry should minimize
transitional expenses for registrars."
the original draft stated that :
Applicants should meet the current performance specifications from the
Verisign .org agreement. The new .org registry should either use the
existing .org registry/registrar protocol (RRP), or be compliant with the
EPP protocol of the IETF "provreg" working group.
why was it subsequently revised ?
we have had specific concerns express by registrars that these specific
protocols be specified as they are consistant with current ICANN - registrar
protocols in use or proposed to be used in the near future.
can we please take the wording back to where it was before ?