Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] The need to evaluate options in a consistent manner

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 9 Apr 2010, at 11:05, Jon Nevett wrote:

>>  
>> 4. I completely disagree with you that creating exceptions to Recommendation 
>> 19 is out of scope, but certainly understand why you and Tim want it to be.
> 
> JN:  No doubt -- it seems like you have said so almost every day on this 
> list, and I understand why you have done so.  
>>  


i do not think we are talking about exception, but interpretations.

i do not think there is anyone who says it would be ok to use non ICANN 
registrars or to not provide equivalent access to those registrars.

and I think, as I said before, that  was the only commitment made in R19.  The 
rest was left ambiguous waiting on resolution of this very subject between 
Registrar and Registries.  

To whit this from the recommendations:

v. In its CIS, the RyC noted that "...the RyC has no problem with this 
recommendation for larger gTLDs; the requirement to use accredited registrars 
has worked well for them. But it has not always worked as well for very small, 
specialized gTLDs. The possible impact on the latter is that they can be at the 
mercy of registrars for whom there is no good business reason to devote 
resources. In the New gTLD PDP, it was noted that this requirement would be 
less of a problem if the impacted registry would become a registrar for its own 
TLD, with appropriate controls in place. The RyC agrees with this line of 
reasoning but current registry agreements forbid registries from doing this. 
Dialog with the Registrars Constituency on this topic was initiated and is 
ongoing, the goal being to mutually agree on terms that could be presented for 
consideration and might provide a workable solution."

a.