Re: [nc-org] wrap up

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

I will contact Guillermo tomorrow and see what we can do to help clarify
this issue.

principal concerns among registrars are to a great extent focused on
insuring that the new mgt. company will not impose any onerous accreditation
fees or "new financial barriers"  and will honor the ICANN accredited status
of the existing registrars.

the new registry transition organization needs to have the right to define
guidelines for registrations (new registries are doing just that) and those
guidelines need to be established thru a  policy development process which,
I feel, will listen to the concerns of all constituencies as well as current
users of ".org"

there are also significant technical issues which need to be discussed (I.e.
"thick" vs current
"thin" registry model).  these issues are of paramount concern to registrars
as well and have significant financial ramifications. I am quite comfortable
that all parties recognize the need for our constituency input into this
part of the transition process as we are significantly impacted by it and
look forward to providing future input in these areas as well.

best wishes,

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <kstubbs@digitel.net>
Cc: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-org] wrap up


> Ken:
> Yours is a difficult request to accommodate,
> because I have never gotten a clear indication
> from you and Guillermo how to reconcile
> your conflicting concerns.
>
> Guillermo/IPCC wants to encourage the
> new ORG to adopt marketing or
> accreditation policies that effectively
> discourage defensive registrations. You are
> naturally concerned about the freedom of
> registrars. The compromise language I
> came up with was this:
>
> "2b. Definition of marketing practices
> Regarding marketing and branding practices, the
> sponsoring organization should propose specific
> practices designed to differentiate the domain,
> promote and attract registrations from the defined
> community, and discourage defensive
> registrations. Such practices may include
> accreditation of registrars, co-marketing campaigns,
> or other methods. DNSO policy favors proposals
> that promote and enhance differentiation while
> minimizing bureaucracy, enforcement costs,
> and restrictions on registrars."
>
> At this stage, you need to provide very specific
> deletions, additions or modifications to this
> language if you want your concerns to be
> taken into account.
>
> Personally, I think the language above is
> pretty good. It asks applicants to propose
> policies that enhance differentiation while
> minimizing restrictions on registrars.
> But I am open to SPECIFIC and CAREFULLY
> THOUGHT OUT modifications, that come
> in the next day or two.
>
> >>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net> 11/28/01 10:16AM >>>
> i am concerned about the reference in the policy statement re: registrar
> accreditation and suggest that you reinforce the fact that all ICANN
> accredited registrars would continue to be able to affiliate with dot org
> after the transfer.
>
> as the registrars are currently covered in the agreement with dot org, i
> also feel that no new financial burdens or other "barriers to entry"
should
> be assumed by them  or imposed on them re: future accreditation to the dot
org registry.
>
>
>
>