RE: [registrars] Dot ".org" re-delegation and its impact on Registrars

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Ken,

 

I agree with your general idea of focussed working groups to consider various issues.  It is in fact how the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) works.  Much of the procedures for IETF can also be useful here.  For example a format for establishing a working group should also define its "charter" - ie what does it expect to achieve and what is the timetable.  Working groups should formally report to the registrars constituency, and the Executive can help coordinate the activities of the different groups.  The Registrars Website is an ideal mechanism for keeping track of the issues.

 

If we identify key issues such as Registrar constituency by-laws, DNSO re-structure, ".org" changes, transfers, deletes etc - we can allocate time for focussed meetings on those topics to coincide with general meetings of the Registrars Constituency.

Some of these meetings can run in parallel to save time.

 

Regards,

Bruce Tonkin

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:52 AM
To: Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Dot ".org" re-delegation and its impact on Registrars

fellow registrars

 

I have forwarded you in the past policy documents from the dot-org task force i have been involved in and as this process starts to move forward it is imperative that we registrars more deeply consider the impact on our operations and business plans that a re-delegation or the ".org" tld may have.

 

i am proposing to the group that we establish a "workforce" to evaluate the impact on our group from this re-delegation.  we also need to start to develop guidelines to assist the ICANN staff in developing RFP's which take into consideration the impact on registrars and place no undue financial burdens on us a a group.

 

as a preliminary suggestion, we need to evaluate and make specific recommendations (if we can arrive at a concensus) on

 

the impacts of transition to "thick" vs staying with "thin" models

timing of the transition

protection of the registrars for any liability arising out of policy changes or change to "thick" vs current  registry models. (this is where data protection & privacy liabilities may come into place)

cost of changes in protocols should they be modified in re-delegation

protection against imposition of any new fees for registrars affiliating with the new registry manager for ".org"

 

needless to say there are many other issues which need to be "vetted" and it is important for us to get organized here and be in a position to provide input into this RFP process as it develops rather than sitting by the wayside and letting it be "imposed on us"..

 

this is a job which will require input from numerous parties but the impact on us all is significant PLUS it sets a good precedence for us to insure that our voice is heard in the future when expansion is contemplated and future RFP's issued.

 

i look forward to your reactions on this issue

 

best wishes

 

 

ken stubbs