[wg-c] Registry-Registry Operator

[Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>]

If we are to have a concept of a 'Registry' that is separate from a
'Registry operator' and the Registry is to be non-profit while the Registry
Operator can be a for-profit, what is the role of the Registry?
(Personally, I am loathe to add another layer to the
Registry-Registrar-Registrant model which now becomes Registry-Registry
Operator-Registrar-Registrant, but hey).
Surely if there is to be a non-profit operating as the Registry, then this
entity should just be ICANN or some operational branch of ICANN. 
Thus, ICANN Registry Division would be the Registry for all gTLDs, but it
would license them under controlled conditions to people who would do the
operational work, i.e. Operate the Registry.
I think we should avoid creating endless layers of bureaucracy.
Can we discuss these structures as part of our WG brief.
Ivan

> 
> On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 05:54:59PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > OTOH, the White Paper was skeptical of the view that 
> registry operators 
> > should be nonprofit, as in the "public resource" model. 
> 
> From the note I sent describing the "public resource" model:
> 
>   The registry is operated as a shared registry on a not-for-profit
>   cost-recovery basis.  The registry operator, however, may be a
>                         ****************************************
>   for-profit company, operating the registry under contract to 
>   ******************
>   ICANN.  The registry operator may be removed for cause, and the   
>   contract would be rebid on a periodic basis.
> 
> In other words, it is not the case that the public resource model
> requires a non-profit(*) registry operator.  It calls for a
> non-profit *registry*.  This is a very important distinction -- the
> company that does the janitorial work at the Red Cross building is a
> for-profit company performing services under contract for a
> non-profit charity. 
> 
> That's a hypothetical case -- I don't really know who does janitorial
> work for the Red Cross. :-)
> 
> I do know, however, that Emergent, the company that built the CORE
> registry system, and who operated the prototype CORE registry for a
> time, is a for-profit company, and it operated the CORE registry
> under contract to CORE.  However, the CORE registry is a non-profit.
> 
> It is indeed *highly* desirable to have competition between registry
> operators.  That is completely compatible with non-profit registries.
> 
> ================================================================
> 
> (*)I use the term "non-profit" fairly freely above -- I'm sure there 
> are all kinds of legal subtleties.
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>