Re: [registrars] Teleconference re: Post Testbed Phase

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

A couple of points....


>For those of you who haven't seen this yet, it looks like DoC is ready to
make
>an announcement tomorrow:
>http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/99/136896.html
>
>Ken, I also have some additional thoughts on the agenda for the
teleconference:
>
>1. internic.net as a public resource and signpost for all registrars


I would amend this to read "and signpost for all stakeholders". The world
does not end with Registrars - what about ISPs, web-hosters, idno's etc.?

>2. equal terms to all resellers -- as we all know, NSI currently does not
hold
>its resellers accountable if the end customer defaults on payment (see
NSI's
>business account agreement at
>http://www.networksolutions.com/business_account/business_agreement.html)


Not often do I get the chance to defend NSI ;) - however, all registrars
have the option of eating the defaults and paying NSI-Registry payments
due. As much as I dislike the tenor of this arrangement, dictating the
business process to registrars is a dangerous step for ICANN to make. In my
mind, the only way to solve this problem is to arrange for a complete
arms-length arrangement between NSI-REgistrar and NSI-Registry. The US
government has done this in the past with other monopolies that present
serious conflicts of interest when dealing with 'themselves' and I think
that time is nigh that a similar exploration is done in this case as well.


>3. the cost of doing business should be the same for all registrars -- if
the
>end customer defaults, the registrars lose $18 to the registry; NSI loses
>nothing (NSI registrar pays NSI registry $18)


This is in large part due to the arbitrary licenses granted by the
registry - does it make a difference to the registry if we grant a two year
initial subscription to a domain name or make it a three month term? If
registrars were allowed to sell variable term registrations, a lot of this
problem would go away because those that did not wish to bear the risk of
defaults on longer term subscriptions would allow their customers to
register over shorter cycles, thus minimizing their downside. This is
another clear example of NSI protecting its revenue and monopoly at the
expense of other firms that do not share in its monopoly.

Now with that being said - I am definitely willing to reach for change by
taking small steps - none of these positions are immutable and I think that
any forward progress is positive.

>
>Regards,
>Lauren
>
>Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
>> fellow registrars
>>
>> we have had a significant number of positive responses on the proposal
to
>> hold a teleconference . It is clear that there are many questions that
need
>> to be answered and a significant need for bringing all the registrars as
>> up-to-date as possible.
>>
>> i talked to representatives from ICANN and they have indicated that they
>> feel that a conference of this nature would be most beneficial and they
>> would be  happy to participate.
>>
>> feedback from the registrars who have responded so far indicates a
strong
>> need for a specific agenda and following up on that , i am suggesting
that
>> we start a thread for tentative agenda items . there are many questions
and
>> concerns regarding various policies and procedures that will come out of
>> this agreement and also a need for more specific timelines for
>> implementation of programs such as the UDRP.
>>
>> i also feel that this would be an excellent opportunity for us to "put
our
>> two cents worth" in regarding our thoughts on funding as well.
>>
>> we all recognize that, at this point in time, we are still waiting for
some
>> definitive action here... but comments from the other registrars seem to
>> indicate that there are currently definitive issues that need
elaboration,
>> regardless of the final outcome of the negotiations. i will start with a
>> couple of items specific item (no priority intended here)
>>
>> 1. when can we expect some definitive reports on  the testbed phase ?
>> 2..how can we make the transfer process more efficient and less
cumbersome
>> 3. what about the concept of uniform "handles"  ? is this possible how
can
>> we make this process as effective and efficient as possible?
>> 3. what can we as registrars do to more effectively deal with  providing
>> input and the front end of the policy making process rather than being
>> forced to react at the back end
>>
>> we are looking forward to hearing more from all of you and to your
>> participation... so please lets hear
>> your thought on agenda items etc.
>>
>> best wishes
>>
>> Ken Stubbs
>> e-mail:  kstubbs@corenic.org
>> ICQ#: 18781607
>> Tel: 1 352 750-9776
>
>--
>Regards,
>Lauren Gaviser
>Director of Strategic Initiatives
>register.com
>tel: (212)798-9155
>fax: (212)627-6477
>