Re: [registrars] Please Consider the Following

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Michael D. Palage wrote:
> 
> Dear Tim:
> 
> Thank you for your informative note.  In reading your note, it actually
> raised a question that I would like to put forth to the entire registrar
> constituency as we move forward with reorganizing the constituency.  Should
> the constituency consider opening up some sort of membership (i.e.
> affiliate, junior, non-voting etc. status) to non-ICANN accredited
> registrars.

Answer is no. That includes "no" to everything that you
described above: "junior" "non-voting" etc.

> 
> Now before answering please consider the following. In Berlin, at the
> constituency's first meeting, there was a motion put forth by NSI, before
> they became part of the ICANN family, that the constituency be open to
> non-ICANN accredited registrars. Ivan Pope was also a strong proponent of
> this motion. 

Ivan is still with Netnames.com? 
They are currently not ICANN accredited, correct? 
So it makes sense that he would be in favor of that.
(Please correct me if I am wrong about their current
status or Ivan's affiliation.)


> Those registrars in attendance rejected this idea, and I as the
> interim secretariat had the honor of getting up before the General Assembly
> and informing them that the registrars constituency was only open to ICANN
> accredited registrars. Needless to say I came under some heavy criticism
> reminiscence of last month's Melbourne meeting :-)
> 
> Amadeu suggested that I contact registry operators to see if they had any
> criteria for accredited registrars. After Berlin, and before Chile, I sent
> out an email to every ccTLD operator inquiring about whether they had
> criteria for accrediting registrars. I received a small handful of responses
> that basically stated that the registry operator did not use registrars.
> 
> I reported this fact in Chile. In Chile when other constituency's began to
> adopt restrictive charters, nothing more was made of the request. Now this
> walk down memory lane was not just merely for nostalgia reasons but to
> revisit this question in light of changing circumstances.
> 
> Specifically, the .CA accreditation of registrars, VeriSign's accreditation
> of registrars for the .TV TLD, and other ccTLD operators practices. Should
> the constituency consider some type of position for these entities within
> our organization?

It is, and should be, for ICANN accredited registrars only. 
I don't see what Verisign's .TV accreditation or .CA has to
do with this, and I don't consider this "changing circumstances".

> 
> Although I share everyone's concern about an non-ICANN accredited registrars
> impacting policy that they would not have to live by, an argument made very
> effectively by Ken Stubbs against Don Telage and David Johnson's motion in
> Berlin (seems like yesterday doesn't Ken). If the much heralded
> consolidation within the registrars industry takes place, how many ICANN
> accredited registrars will be left in 4 years.

Enough registrars left to matter.

Consolidation is a prediction, not a certaintly. 
Analysts and reporters tend to focus on major
players and ignore the smaller operations. 
This is not the Auto business. The barriers are not THAT high.

I don't agree that there will only be a small number
of ICANN accredited registrars left in 4 years, assuming
of course that the demand for domain names doesn't fall
considerably. Keep in mind that the barriers to entry are being lowered. 
The new TLD's are not requiring performance bonds or payments
for software. That being said, how many ICANN accredited
registrars will be around in 4 years? Could be 250 or could be 25. 
Nothing wrong with 25. It won't be 3 or 5 though. 

> Will this small number
> justify a constituency unto itself. 

GTLD currently has only 1 member.

> Or would it be wise to gather more
> voices so that when an issues comes up to ICANN we can speak with an
> amplified voice of many instead of just a few?

As Elana pointed out, outside voices will dilute,
and I would add, possibly create a consensus where one
does not exist among the "voting" voices.

More noise and voices whoose agenda and interests
are not the same. 
 
This will be the case no matter what type 
of membership is offered, and whether or not it
is non-voting etc.

> 
> I have no preference and only put it forward for discussion to the list
> based upon Tim 's original email. I agree that any potential consideration
> would have to have safeguards to prevent, these new members from voting on
> issues directly impacting ICANN accredited registrar viewpoints.

As mentioned, just their voices alone will
alter public opinion. This list is a public list and many
people review it to see what is on the minds
of the "ICANN accredited registrars".

Larry Erlich

P.S. The above assumes that the
"sore loser" campaign to overturn the contract
ammendment succeeds. Otherwise there will only
be 1 player left.

http://www.DomainRegistry.com

> And it may
> be best to address these issues after the new constituency leadership is in
> place.
> 
> Just some thoughts, and a little history lesson for some of the new comers.
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Timothy M. Denton
> > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:08 PM
> > To: michael@palage.com
> > Cc: Registrars List; Ca-reg Announce
> > Subject: [registrars] Message from the ca-registrars association
> >
> >
> > April 6, 2001
> >
> > Mr. Michael Palage
> > Secretary, the Association
> >       of  ICANN-accredited registrars in the DNSO
> >
> > michael@palage.com
> >
> > Dear Michael,
> >
> >       I am writing to you in my capacity as the representative of
> > the Canadian
> > registrars in the .ca namespace. In that capacity I sit on the Board of
> > CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (www.cira.ca), which is
> > the corporation that manages the .ca namespace. Two hundred thousand .ca
> > registrations have been made as of now.
> >
> >       My purposes in writing you are, first, to introduce you to
> > the existence of
> > the .ca- registrars, and second, to offer our cooperation I matters of
> > mutual interest.
> >
> >       The ca-registrars are without formal legal organization at
> > this time.
> > However, it is expected that, in the course of this year, we will begin to
> > move beyond an e-mail listserve into some kind of association status under
> > the Canada Corporations Act. As with the Registrars' Association under the
> > ICANN umbrella, we have been reluctant to engender expenses.
> >
> >       An election to the Board of CIRA will be held this summer,
> > and the original
> > appointed Board of Directors will be replaced with one elected by the
> > holders of .ca names, which is the electorate in this case.
> >
> >       As we are in touch frequently on matters of common interest
> > in the ICANN
> > forum, I am sure it will prove possible to continue cooperation of .ca
> > registrars and ICANN-accredited registrars on matters of mutual interest.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Timothy Denton
> >
> >
> > T.M.Denton, BA,BCL
> > tmdenton.com
> > 1-613-789-5397
> > 37 Heney Street
> > Ottawa, Ontario
> > Canada K1N 5V6
> > www.tmdenton.com
> >
> >

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------