RE: [registrars] Please Consider the Following

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@nameengine.com>]

As Bryan suggests, the obvious thing to do, in my opinion, is to make
ICANN accreditation altogether less onerous, so that it's easier to join
as a registrar.  This would answer to both sides of the argument.  The
$10K licensing fee to NSI is ludicrous; the $100K "surety instrument" is
equally so, especially in places where such things are not commonly done
- I'm sure that in practice many registrars have simply had to put up
the money, so that it functions as little more than an expensive
initiation fee.  

The registrars constituency should be pushing these sorts of issues.  We
do want to extend access to the registries instead of stifling it, do we
not?

Antony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Evans [mailto:bevans@interaccess.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 2:01 PM
> To: Elana Broitman; michael@palage.com; Timothy M. Denton
> Cc: Registrars List; Dan Halloran
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Please Consider the Following
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> I have to agree with Elana.  She raises some excellent points.  I
> think there is value in an outreach to other registrars that are not
> ICANN-accredited, but we operate under restrictions they do not.
> They should not have a voice in setting our own opinions on ICANN
> matters.  As members of the internet community, they are already
> represented by the General Assembly directly and their respective
> registries indirectly.  To have a voice in ICANN as a registrar, one
> should be an ICANN-accredited registrar.
> 
> It might be valuable to have a class of non-voting members who could
> participate in our debates and discussions, but not have a 
> vote when it
> came to making ultimate decisions and setting policies.  This would
> allow us to coordinate the common ground between ccTLD and gTLD
> registrars without diluting our voice on issues where we might differ.
> 
> Furthermore, we might want to consider encouraging ccTLD registrars to
> become ICANN-accredited, whether or not they choose to offer gTLD's
> directly.  Personally, I feel that would strengthen (instead 
> of weaken)
> our voice in ICANN.  Also, it would increase their perception 
> & voice in
> ICANN and the Internet community and help ensure the stability of the
> entire domain name registration industry, gTLD or ccTLD.
> 
> -Bryan
> 
> 
> Bryan Evans
> Director of Technology
> InterAccess, an Allegiance Telecom company
> bevans@interaccess.com
> 312-496-4295
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:04 PM
> To: michael@palage.com; Timothy M. Denton
> Cc: Registrars List; Dan Halloran
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Please Consider the Following
> 
> 
> Dear Mike - I believe that it would undermine the 
> constituency to open it to
> non-ICANN accredited registrars.  As Ken had earlier stated, 
> it would allow
> companies that do not have to live by accreditation rules to affect
> registrar policies and possibly concensus policies, which change ICANN
> agreements.  It would dilute the voice of accredited registrars,
> particularly some of the smaller companies, which already 
> raise concerns
> about their meaningful ability to participate.  It could be 
> dilutive of
> ICANN's authority and policies by allowing participation by 
> companies that
> ICANN has either rejected for accreditation or which have 
> decided not to
> pursue accreditation in order to avoid ICANN's reach.  
> Finally, it could
> create arbitrary policies for constituency membership - what 
> is the rule for
> who may join?
> 
> I think to follow on Tim's letter, however, we might consider 
> establishing a
> constituency outreach mechanism to related organizations such 
> as CIRA.  That
> would address the potential benefits, without diluting the 
> constituency.  In
> fact, this function could be incorporated in the expanded constituency
> leadership's responsiblities.
> 
> Thanks, Elana
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael D. Palage <michael@palage.com>
> To: Timothy M. Denton <tmdenton@magma.ca>
> Cc: Registrars List <Registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:43 PM
> Subject: [registrars] Please Consider the Following
> 
> 
> > 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.
> >
> > 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. 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?
> >
> > 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. Will this 
> small number
> > justify a constituency unto itself. 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?
> >
> > 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. 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
> >
> >
>
>