[nc-org] correction to my previous message
Correction is in bold type in the last
sentence .... (SORRY FOR THE MIS-TYPE)
would suggest that the de-accredition phrasing be removed and
instead
and that references to any potential "de-accredition" process be covered in the RFP rather than as a policy issue now. if you refer to de accredition now then we would have to insist that protections be put in place for that registrar with respect to their existing "book of business". the only "de-accreditation" issues you cover with the current phrasing are protection of the registrants. what about protection of the registrar who registered these "grandfather" accounts in good faith ? this is not the place for this issue to be covered. my suggestion is that references to de-accredition not be included in this document as it will send the wrong message to the registrar constituancy. this is clearly an issue that will have to be flushed out in the future but NOT NOW (given the time frame) ken stubbs |