RE: [registrars] .org Redelegation position statement

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

Ross - good job.  I tried for a few changes to preserve a couple of items
that registrars felt strongly about.  But, agree that this should be concise
and we should finalize and send the statement.  

Bryan - do you think we're at that stage now that people have had close to a
week to comment?
Thanks, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: ross@tucows.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:54 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; Registrars List
Subject: Re: [registrars] .org Redelegation position statement


Mike - your analysis is spot on. Our position must be clear, concise and
agreed upon. Further, Ken Stubbs has done a great job of ensuring that
Registrar requirements are appropriately reflected in the TF report. I also
agree that we must ensure, as Ken recently stated that "any RFP provide for
a transition which does not impose any undue technological burden (& it's
related costs) on the registrars."

To that end, I have created an amended draft that I believe balances the
need for presenting a clear, concise and unaminous position, the requirement
that our positions do not in any way undermine Ken's previous work while
also ensuring that the true intent of Ken's efforts as described above are
reflected in our final position.

While the drafting team did a great job of drafting what could potentially
become a consensus position after a good deal of discussion, I don't think
that it adequately reflects the *current* state of the membership's thinking
nor does it sufficiently acknowledge Ken's efforts thus far.

There may be constituency members that have strong feelings on some of the
points that I have redacted, but I estimate that these are specific and
limited to individual members and not widely held by the whole. To those
that fall within this category, I would strongly recommend that you evaluate
whether or not you wish to file a minority report with the ICANN Board. It
is certainly not my intent to diminish the views of individual members, but
rather to drive towards a position statement that can be put forward
according to Mike's criteria.

Please find attached a clean and red-lined version of the proposed
amendments to the drafting team recommendation for your consideration. I
would be happy to supply these documents in other formats - please send me a
note directly and I will convert and resend.

-rwr



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: "Registrars List" <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:38 AM
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
> >
>

ORGDIVESTv5-5.doc