Re: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> 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.

Wise.

>
> 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.
>

Agreed.

> 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?

In some cases, such as the Neulevel lock, development and deployment of
these services are clearly within the scope of the existing contracts. GNR's
mail product would also fall into this category. Verisign currently offers a
lock feature through the RRP that is included in the $6 annual fee. If they
were to introduce (or any registry in a similar spot - I hate to always have
to pick on Verisign) a repackage of this feature for $15, it would be a
problem.

As it relates to the WLS specifically, changing the behavior of a post-[DEL]
[ADD] command (a behaviour that is well-documented in the .com Registry
Agreement) is something that requires the development of Consensus Policy -
regardless of what the proposed solution is. What I mean is that the current
RRP spec pretty much describes an [ADD] command as being an
[ADD_IF_THE_DOMAIN_DOESN'T_EXIST] command. The WLS requires an
[ADD_IF_THE_DOMAIN_AND_A_WLS_SUBSCRIPTION_DOESN'T_EXIST] command. Adding
this second command requires a change in behavior of the command that we
currently use. While not as nefarious, this is certainly analogous to a
bait-and-switch. Our contract with VGRS was signed based on the behavior of
the first command and I'd prefer that they don't change it without first
following the same steps that everyone else has to follow if they want to
change the contract.

If, on the other hand, they are allowed to modify this behaviour without
following consensus policy, I believe that this would set a great precedent
for the ICANN staff to do the same and modify the behaviour of the transfer
policy without us first going through a consensus policy development
process. After all, with the Transfer issue, all we are requesting is to
modify the behaviour of the [TRANSFER] command. '-)

>
> 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 :-)

Not really - third parties provide value-added services on names that we
sell all of the time. For instance, I venture that we are one of the few
registrars that doesn't offer DNS by default with the domain names that we
sell. A registrant could conceivably use CORE for their DNS, Register.com
for their email, Allegiance for their web services and Tucows as their
registrar (assuming that the other parties allowed for this). This is why
unbundled, competitive and well-priced services are so critical - it allows
registrars to compete more effectively. The second that we start venturing
into pre-packaged (here, sell this) services from the various registries is
the second that we may as well all decided to become Amazon Affiliates.

>
> 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.

Plugging it in may not prove to be appropriate at this point, but as you
indicate in your last message, it may provide us with some decent
touchstones by which we can govern ourselves in the meantime.

Take care,

-rwr