Re: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Randy has confused registries and registrars.

DARPA and NSF did not accredit registrars. IANA accredited registrars only
within dot US. NSI entered into private contractual arrangements with registrars
for dot com and other gTLDs around the world. They had over 100 such
relationships with registrars prior to ICANN's formation. Nominet (.UK) has its
own method of accrediting registrars, according to a completely differnet,
nonunniform set of criteria. Country code registries in general can accredit
their own registrars -- and they still can, because at this stage ICANN hasn't
established sufficient authority over them, although it will try.

Randy Bush wrote:

> > no, Jon just (uniformly) required them to behave reasonably.  these days,
> > what that means has to be spelled out in detail, and the trademark people
> > want to make sure they do most of the spelling.
>
> we should remember that the darpa and then nsf were fully responsible and in
> authority.  jon, sri, and then nsi were fully vetted and acredited by the
> authorities in place at the time.
>
> the folk here who were not around at the time need not further deomostrate
> their lack of understanding, i for one am fully convinced of it.
>
> randy