RE: [registrars] .org Redelegation position statement

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Bryan,

I would agree with Michael on the protocol issue. In fact, we feel EPP is
far superior and welcome it. I'm sure that there will be a ramp-up period
provided by the new ORG registry to allow us time to transition our systems.
I would suggest that we simply recommend that the new registry use either
RRP or EPP, with perhaps EPP being preferred.

Tim Ruiz
Go Daddy Software, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:39 AM
To: Registrars List
Subject: [registrars] .org Redelegation position statement


Bryan:

Thanks for the efforts of the drafting team in preparing this document. I
agree with most of the issues raised in the document. However, I believe
there is at least one fatal flaw that will undermine the constituency's
creditability in formally adopting this position, specifically, 3.b
regarding no change in protocol.

As registrars we have a contractual right to have a stable registry and to
guarantee a smooth transition, but I believe we seriously overstep our
rights by demanding on a specific protocol. Moreover, to my knowledge this
restrictions would prohibit a number of the new registry providers,
NeuLevel, Afilias, GNR, or prospective bidders such as Liberty from bidding
on .ORG because they have an EPP registry. To my knowledge based on the
presentation given by RegistryAdvantage two weeks ago in Dulles only beside
VRSN only Register.com has RRP capable registry.

I also have concerns about the following statements in 3.c about a
performance bond. There are several members of this constituency that are
not operational in .com, .org and .net. The wording of section 3.c would
potentially penalize them by requiring them to get a bond. Although we could
raise this as a concern citing the increased competition in .biz and .info
given the lack of a bond requirement, we must be careful of what we
advocate/demand.

I also may have some concerns about the statements in 3.d and 3.e, I will
need to review the contracts to make sure that these issues are not already
contractually set forth.

Overall it is an great draft and I believe that it is important that on
issues like this we speak with unanimity, not just mere consensus. I hope
other registrars understand the potential politics of this issue given that
ICANN just announced last night that the .ORG transition will be on the
agenda in Ghana.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage









> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Bryan Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:06 AM
> To: Registrars List
> Subject: [registrars] .org Redelegation position statement
>
>
> Registrars,
>
> Here is a draft copy of the .org redelegation position statement, as
> produced by the Task Force: Ken Stubbs, Elana Broitman, Werner Staub, and
> myself.  Please feel free to make comments directly to me, and I'll
> distribute them to the other members of the Task Force.
>
> We will include the final copy of this document in the same Registrars
> Constituency vote that will be taken for the WLS proposal on this Friday,
> March 1 (it's substantially cheaper for the constituency if we vote on
> several issues at once, rather than hold several separate votes).
> Therefore, the time period for incorporating comments is unfortunately
> short.
>
> -Bryan
>