RE: [registrars] New Registry Service Offering

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

Mike - this is an interesting proposal.  Before even getting into the
specifics such as definitions, we should think about why we would institue
such a protocol.  Is it to foster decision making within the constituency?
Is it to force registries to come to us before launching any new products or
services? What is its relationship to the ICANN concensus policy process?
For example, the end of the flow chart contains a question mark -- is that
because we're not sure what the result is?  If we follow the process, would
a concensus policy still be required in cases of core services?  Given that
this involves ICANN contracts, we may need advice from ICANN.

On the specific issue, I agree with you that the definitions of ancillary
and core services are the key.  "Registry Service" is already defined by
ICANN in its agreements with registries.  Should we stick to that or broaden
them for this purpose?  We may want to consider a broader definition of
"ancillary" to include services that are not required for registration or
not technically impossible for other entities to do, but which a registry
has a substantial competitive advantage in offering such that it would be
nearly impossible for a competitor entity to provide the service.  (for
example, costs are prohibitive.)

The WLS, by the way, is a core service even under your definition, because
effectively WLS would be required for the registration of any attractive
names.  I believe I'm echoing Ross in saying that.

Anyway, this is a productive discussion and I look forward to other
registrars' comments.

Best regards, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:12 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] New Registry Service Offering


Hello All:

Last week I raised the issue of working on a protocol for how registries
would roll-out new service offerings. Although I had been working on a much
more detailed flow chart, I thought it prudent to start with a clean slate
and ask some fundamental questions that will guide the rest of our
discussion.

Attached is a copy of a first draft of the revised flow chart which is based
upon the following five concepts:

I - Is the new service offering by the registry a "core service" or an
"ancillary service". This is probably one of the most important questions
that we will ask in this entire discussion. Based on the discussion last
week about DNS hosting and other ancillary services I propose the following
distinction. A registry service is defined as a "core service" if it is
technically impossible for a third party to offer the service independent of
the registry operator. All registry service offerings that do not qualify as
a "core service" are explicitly defined as an ancillary service.

II - Comment Period. This area of discussion will focus on the mechanisms
and methods for the dissemination and gathering of feedback from interested
third parties.

III - Resolution. As we are experiencing first hand, resolving potential
conflicts is going to be one of the most complex issues to address. As
mentioned last week, I believe most disputes can be categorized into one of
three categories: policy, technology, and price. Although a couple of people
raised the issue of who was offering the service as an additional concern in
the context of the current WLS debate, I believe that this issue is properly
covered under the Policy umbrella.

IV - Technical implementation window. This will focus on working with
registries to provide us with tool kits and other resources in a timely
fashion.

V - Registry service goes live. I believe this area of discussion will focus
on what happens with problems after the launch of a service.

If you believe there are other additions/deletions that need to be made to
this chart at this conceptual level please tell me. Otherwise I would
propose that we begin breaking down the above referenced individual areas
into separate more detailed flowcharts.

Best regards,

Michael Palage