Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27 Mar 2010, at 16:43, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
> It is precisely my position, that (1) new TLDs in the future may not need 
> some of the "consumer protections" that registrars like to allege are in the 
> RAA because they would not be applicable; and (2) there are no protections in 
> the RAA that could not be put directly into a registry agreement for those 
> registries in the future that do not need or want to use ICANN -accredited 
> registrars.
> 
> Let me give you an example, which I will state is NOT one that I know is 
> applying for a TLD in this round, but is a potential TLD based on actual 
> services offered today in the marketplace.  I have also extremely dummied 
> this down for myself and for others.  There are a number of companies that 
> offer what is known as private ENUM services which use DNS to perform lookups 
> and to route traffic amongst telecommunication service providers and their 
> aggregators.  It is private in that to "register" or "access" private domain 
> names requires connection to the "registry" through private VPN-type 
> connections and cannot be viewed or accessed by the regular public.  Billions 
> of transactions per day are conducted through these private ENUM systems.  
> Most of the Private ENUM operators have never participated in the ICANN 
> process nor do they have any intention to.
> 
> However, there may be reasons that these private ENUM systems may want to be 
> opened up so that public lookups, or connections through the public Internet 
> are possible.  It would still essentially be a closed system, but in order to 
> prevent a clash between something registered in the public root and the 
> private root, it is possible that an operator of a private ENUM system may 
> want a TLD in the public root.  What is important for this example is not 
> that this exists today, which it does, but rather these names do not have 
> websites, e-mail accounts, blogs, etc.  There is no content available to be 
> viewed by the public, nor is it something a consumer ever sees.  Everything 
> happens in the background invisible to the consumer.  In that circumstance, 
> there would be no need for registrars, WHOIS, no need for registrar 
> transfers, no resellers, no ICANN deletion policy, no UDRP, no need for an 
> ICANN logo, etc.   In fact, one might argue that there is very little 
> registry functionalit!
> y needed as well :)

There are also public ENUM in operation in several countries and you can do 
lookups via public DNS.

I fail to see your point.



> 
> I took your advice and re-read the RAA.  Cutting out of the legalese, the 
> parts about paying ICANN its fees and the boilerplate, below is the sum total 
> or protections for consumers (Reworded in short hand by me)

<snip>

You seem  to have  overlooked the "rights and responsibilities" that was 
introduced in the 2009 RAA


Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845