Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Sunday, April 08, 2001 7:54 PM (AEST), Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> On Sunday, April 08, 2001 9:12 AM (AEST), Danny Younger wrote:
> > Patrick Corliss has also noted, "In Australia, Connect.com is both a
> > Registry and a Registrar for .net.au."  Others assuredly will bring forward
> > additional examples of other gTLD registries.  As the gTLD Constituency
> > already exists, I would think that now is the time for those with rights to
> > participation to assert those rights.

> I am not sure I understand this one, though.
> TLD means Top Level Domain, and to the best of my understanding .net.au and
> similar entities, although Registries, are SLDs (Second Level Domains).
> The difference is not trivial, as I assume that .net.au would operate with a
> contract with .au, and not with a direct relationship with ICANN like the
> TLDs.

http://www.dnso.org/constituency/registrars/registrars.html states as follows:

The Registrar Constituency

The Registrar Constituency of the DNSO, is currently made up of members who meet
the requirement of being an ICANN accredited Registrar, and having completed a
Membership Form.  Primarily, the Registrar Constituency has been focussing its
efforts on the direct issues facing Registrars in the gTLD's .com .net and .org.

There are many issues that have been tackled, and many yet to be tackled, as the
overall state of the Registry/Registrar relationship and operations are
undergoing a great deal of change.   Thus, this constituency has one of the more
defined membership and courses of action to date, however eventually the
intention is to broaden the focus to include ccTLD Registrars, and perhaps
resellers and those performing services and operations like a  "registrar."
<end quote>

Hi Roberto

As seen above, the ccTLD Registrars are not included in the "registrar"
constituency and neither are Registration Service Providers (RSPs) such as
OpenSRS's 5,000 resellers.  However, the statement on the website suggests that
there is an "intention" to include such participants.

In Australia, AFAIK, Melbourne IT - the registrar for .com.au -- IS an ICANN
accredited registrar whilst Connect.com - the registrar for .net.au - is NOT an
ICANN accredited registrar.

So Melbourne IT is eligible to join the "registrar" constituency and Connect.com
is effectively disenfranchised.  Of course a ccTLD may, or may not, have a
cc-ICANN to play with.

My understanding of Danny's comments was not so much that .net.au was a gTLD
(which as a cc-2LD it clearly isn't) but that a broader range of registrars
should be eligible to join the "registrar" constituency in accordance with the
"intention" specified on the DNSO website.

Whilst it could be argued that ICANN accreditation defines those with an
interest in ICANN processes, the question remains why should other, equally
competent registrars be excluded?

Perhaps it is that ICANN wants to encourage accreditation in order to collect
the accreditation licence fee.  It is also possible that there is hidden agenda
to ensure compliance with the UDRP.

Clearly the scope of the "registrars" constituency needs to be clearly defined.

Regards
Patrick Corliss
















--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html