RE: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Thanks Ross,

Although I think it is a great initiative, the true test will be having it
come to fruition. Because of the WLS discussion I wanted to wait, however,
my conversations in my conversations with the registries about their
potential sponsorship of our meeting next month made me believe that this is
an issue that needs to be addressed sooner as opposed to later.

Almost every registry operator discussed how they wanted to discuss with
registrars new service offerings that would be launching shortly. This made
me think that if these discussions go the same course as the WLS we have
zero chance of completing our objectives outlined in the 2002 agenda.

I have to think about your comments of the WLS being a re-packed service,
and let me explain why. A number of registrars offer a registrar lock
feature, some for free (eNom) others at an additional cost. In the NeuLevel
.BIZ proposal they discussed a registry lock feature that would directly
compete with the registrar lock service offering. Although I do not believe
that this service is currently operational, a price point is provided for in
their existing contract, see Appendix G -
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appg-11may01.htm. So
what happens if VeriSign was to decide to offer a registry lock feature in
.com, .org and .net would this be classified as a re-packed service?

Further issues that I would need to consider in my analysis are the
following, do we as registrars have an exclusive lock on all services
associated with a sponsored domain name and that customer. For example,
could a registrant choose TUCOWS to register a .BIZ domain name, but choose
VeriSign registrar to offer a registry lock service in connection with a
digital certificate it obtains. Gets interesting doesn't it :-)

The objective of the paper/flowchart is to illicit comments from
registration authorities to work towards a mutually acceptable goal. Based
upon my current work load, I hope to have the flow chart available prior to
the February meeting so I doubt it would have any benefit toward the current
WLS discussion. Moreover, the flow chart is designed to start with the
proposal and then work through a series of steps, I do not think plugging
the WLS into it with all its baggage would work.

Mike




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:10 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering
>
>
> This is a great initiative Mike. Declaring standardized processes
> will most
> certainly allow registrars and registries to streamline their
> relationships
> and operate in closer harmony. One problem though as it relates to this
> particular comment.
>
> > In connection with this effort, I have begun drafting a flow chart that
> > would allow all interested parties to provide input into the
> process while
> > protecting the business interests of registration authorities, both
> > registrars and registries. I will be circulating a draft
> shortly. But the
> > part of this flow chart that I would like to share with the constituency
> now
> > in connection with the WLS discussion is the following. There are
> generally
> > three objections to any new registry service offering: policy, price and
> > technology. What the draft committee should consider is how to
> distill the
> > comments into the following areas. Once you have consolidate the
> individual
> > and collective concerns you then allow for a more informed discussion.
>
> The WLS is not a new service entirely. It is a re-package of an existing
> service. As a result, it clearly falls within the scope of the
> ICANN/Registry Agreement. Changing these agreements requires the
> development
> of consensus policy - which is not a process that we can
> arbitrarily change
> or ignore.
>
> Not having seen the document yet, my question would necessarily be - does
> the document take this into account or is it strictly intended to deal
> solely with the development and deployment of new services? I
> suspect it is
> the latter from your email, but I just want to be clear.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
>