ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of preliminarytask force report on Whois services

  • To: stahura@xxxxxxxx, ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of preliminarytask force report on Whois services
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:18:25 -0500

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>hmmm, IF there are 20 registrars, then some might be concerned that we don't have the 
robust competition that ICANN takes credit for. but I've seen statements by the ICANN staff that 
there are far more... so I am truly confused now!&nbsp;&nbsp;</P>
<P>the question was whether there is a problem to get consistency across registrars, 
and it looks like Ross and Paul are suggesting a concentration of registration in a way 
that should make it simple to get to some consistent approaches since Paul is suggesting 
that there are only really 20 registrars or suggesting that there are 200 at most. Both are 
useful facts. </P>
<P>I suggest that the ICANN staff provide the facts of how many accredited registrars there are, so the 
facts are clear to the TF and to the stakeholders who need to consider any policy recommendations. 
<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 
0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>

<DIV></DIV>From:&nbsp;&nbsp;<I>"Paul Stahura" &lt;stahura@xxxxxxxx&gt;</I><BR>To:&nbsp;&nbsp;<I>&lt;marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,"Ross Rader Rader" &lt;ross@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;</I><BR>CC:&nbsp;&nbsp;<I>"Maria Farrell" &lt;maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx&gt;,&lt;gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;</I><BR>Subject:&nbsp;&nbsp;<I>RE: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of preliminarytask force report on Whois services</I><BR>Date:&nbsp;&nbsp;<I>Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:28:15 -0800</I><BR>&gt;Marilyn,<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;I think you know he is not saying that there are 600 registrars without<BR>&gt;whois.<BR>&gt;I think what he is saying is that there are not really 800 different<BR>&gt;policies out there, that there are less than 200 (at most).&nbsp;&nbsp;And in my<BR>&gt;opinion, it's more like 20.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Nice try at trying to make it seem like there are 800 unruly<BR>&gt;off-the-reservation registrars out there.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;And what makes you think registrants do not have certainty and<BR>&gt;predictability now?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;-----Original Message-----<BR>&gt;From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]<BR>&gt;On Behalf Of marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt;Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:01 AM<BR>&gt;To: Ross Rader Rader<BR>&gt;Cc: 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt;Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of<BR>&gt;preliminarytask force report on Whois services<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Thanks, Ross. I am curious abt something though. And your role in<BR>&gt;speaking for the registrars is helpful. So, does that mean 600<BR>&gt;registrars are given a free ride by ICANN and don't actually have WHOIS?<BR>&gt;And if so, isn't that a violation of accreditation?<BR>&gt;Regards,<BR>&gt;Marilyn Cade<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;-----Original Message-----<BR>&gt;From: Ross Rader &lt;ross@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:28:38<BR>&gt;To:Marilyn Cade &lt;marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt;Cc:'Maria Farrell' &lt;maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx&gt;, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt;Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of<BR>&gt;preliminary<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;task force report on Whois services<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Marilyn Cade wrote:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; However, I don't believe that this is supportable over 800 registrars.<BR>&gt;Some<BR>&gt; &gt; form of standardized procedures will undoubtedly be needed to bring<BR>&gt; &gt; certainty and predictability to registrants, irregardless of the<BR>&gt;interests<BR>&gt; &gt; of registrars to develop kinds of services in this area.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Again, I'm going to ask what the basis for this contention is? Your<BR>&gt;personal conjecture isn't sufficient to turn "belief" into fact.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;If you have data that you'd like to share with the TF on this point, I'd<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;encourage you to do so. I'd also like you better understand the basis<BR>&gt;for your implication that the basis for the registrar policy position is<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;to support the development of new services. This is simply not the case.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Please also note that the number of operational registrars has been<BR>&gt;relatively stable at around the 200 mark and that the remainder of the<BR>&gt;registrars in the 800 that you quote are controlled by one or two<BR>&gt;entities involved in the aftermarket game. They do not come into play in<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;consideration of this policy because they do not have real registrants<BR>&gt;to speak of.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Finally, I think your conjecture confuses the needs of registrants with<BR>&gt;the needs of the intellectual property interests that you and your<BR>&gt;associates represent in this discussion.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;I would really urge you to reconsider the argument that you are putting<BR>&gt;forward considering that you are describing a large part of the<BR>&gt;operational requirements that registrars already deal with in their day<BR>&gt;to day operations. We are not seeking to change our role as the<BR>&gt;maintainer of registrant data in the registration process. The<BR>&gt;implications you are making are completely unfounded (but entirely<BR>&gt;predictable unfortunately).<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Ross Rader<BR>&gt;<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy