Re: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Mike,

In your flow chard I'd like to see how current services are fixed. for
instance we have issues with the QOS of RRP and we also have the Transfers
issue which the WLS has successfully derailed. I prefer we first learn how
to fix some of the issues/processes we have rather than standardising how
we roll out new services.

-rick


On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Hello All:
>
> Although I have recussed myself from the discussion of the VeriSign WLS
> service offering, I believe that we must ask ourselves the bigger question
> of how do we as part of the registration authority industry (registrars and
> registries) work together to roll-out new service offerings to registrants
> given the symbiotic relationship that exists between registrars and
> registries.
>
> I believe the work the constituency did in connection with NeuLevel's IP
> Claim service and GNR's e-mail forward service was productive. We collective
> formulated and advanced a position reinforcing the role registrars must play
> in servicing registrants. Based upon this and our collective experience from
> the IDN test-bed I believe that the only solution going forward is to
> develop a set of protocols for how new registry service offerings are
> introduced in a controlled orderly fashion.
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
>