Re: [wg-c] YAPP (yet another position paper)

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>]

A *few* questions?  :>)
I'll try my best to answer them.
see below...


> Paul,
>
> A few questions.
>
> >1.  6-9 registries
> and
> >3.  1-10 TLDs per registry.

Re-read my post.  I said 6-10 initial TLDs and that
registries could *propose* 1-10 TLDs for their registry here.
I know our consensus was up to 9 but I switched 9 to 10
because 10 is not divisible by 3.
Sorry for the confusion, it was late and I wanted to
spit it out in a few minutes: gotta day job you know. :>)
9, 10 whatever.

>
> The upper limit on new TLDs is 9x10, or 90 initially.

No, not 90. The prospective registry makes a proposal
for how many TLDs it wishes to be a registry for.  If ICANN
chooses to accredit or license (or whatever) a registry
that wishes to register 10 TLDs (if ICANN receives a proposal that
wants all 10, which would be pretty risky for the proposed registry,
in my opinion), then that will be the only registry.  I would guess some
registy, for example a consorium of museums, may only
want one TLD: ".mus", or whatever.   Another may feel that
it needs 3 TLDs, in order to "compete" (if you call it that),
with NSI-the-registry.

>
> >5.  ICANN will decide which string(s) are allocated to which registy
>
> What guidance, if any, is offered to this body?

None beyond what is in each proposal.  Each proposal could
make the case for whatever TLD they are choosing.

>
> >7.  The proposal will state the geographical area in which the registry
> >operates.
>
> Does the area reference apply to the registry, the registrar(s), or
> the registrants?

I was thinking the registry because that is what we are all talking about.
The registrars and registrants are already fairly diverse geographically.
I purposly left out how much weight ICANN should give to this criteria
(and others) when choosing.  Maybe once we decide on the criteria
then we can then give ICANN recomendations on the weights.

>
> >8.  The proposal will state the operational interface that the registry
> >will use to allow registrars to register names.
>
> Some examples would be helpful, I don't know from this statement which
> part of the registry system is referred to.

It referes to the registry/registrar interface mostly.
It would not be a good situation if each registrar had to make
a different interface to each registry, but if some registry proposes
a different interface, so be it, maybe the rest of their proposal
kicks ass in ICANN's eyes. Again, I left out the weight to be assigned.

>
> >9.  The proposal will state its "opening day" policy.  A fair policy
> >where the accredited registrars have equal opportunity to
> >register names on opening day is encouraged.
>
> This is unclear. Are you referring to a multi-registry, multi-TLD "opening
> day", with fairness arising out of coordination, or to a multi-registrar
> (at least one registry, at least one TLD) "opening day", or to something
> else?

I was thinking that each new TLD would not open on the same day and
that when a TLD opens its doors to registrars, which registrar gets first
dibs on the first name registered in that registry?  They should all have an
equal oportunity, that's all.

>
> >10. Minimum operational criteria will be specified by ICANN and the DNSO
and
> >the proposal
> >will have to demonstrate that the registry can meet these criteria.
>
> What guidance, if any, is offered to these bodies? Wasn't the charter
> of Working Group C to define the criteria?

It would be nice, but if we can't decide on these operational criteria,
then I think we should at least state that there should be some.

>
> >12. If accepted, the registry can operate for X=3 years.  After which
time
> >proposals
> >will be accepted for another registry to operate that particular TLD and
> >during which time ICANN may revoke the registry's license for cause.
>
> Is re-registration ment or excluded? Who has title to the data in the
> registry, and how is possession of the data transferred in the event
> of either re-registration failure or revocation for cause?

Since we have the registry/registrar separation model, I would guess that
the only
info that the registry would have would be the zone file data and data
that tells the public which registrar has the registrant's information.
In other words, the most minimal data.  This
is the current "thin" registry model.  In this case, I would say the
information
is public domain.

>
> >ICANN will use the proposal information, weighing all of the many
> >inter-related issues to choose the initial set of registries.
>
> What guidance, if any, is offered to this body? Can we put weights
> or priorities to criteria?

It seems we should be able to, but who knows.  At least we stated the
criteria.

>
> Please don't think my questions critical, there are simply a few items
> I don't yet understand in YAPP.

No problem.
Paul

>
> Cheers,
> Eric