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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri:

I am all for interpretations.

Recommendation 19 says the following:

"Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain 
names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars."

I have supported the interpretation of 19 that says it doesn't mean that 
registries must use all registrars in registering domain names.  A registry may 
select among various registrars based on criteria, as long as they provide 
equal access.

I have a really hard time seeing an interpretation of Rec. 19 that permits a 
sub-section of registries to register domain names without the use of any 
registrars whatsoever.  Again, it doesn't say that the registry itself could 
not act as a registrar.  

I guess you could try to interpret the clause "in registering domain names" and 
argue that a SR is not registering domain names when it is using them itself.  
That argument, however, would go against a long history of registry agreements 
that provides that ROs are not prohibited from "registering names within the 
TLD to itself through a request made to an ICANN-accredited registrar."  (See 
.biz registry agreement 7.1(b) emphasis added).

I think it is hard to avoid the fact that some folks are looking for an 
exception to Recommendation 19 for SRs.  My points are that such an exception 
1) it isn't necessary -- the SR could perform the registrar function; 2) is an 
issue outside of our scope -- the GNSO already decided this one; 3) would 
create a host of unintended consequences -- e.g. applicability of issues in the 
RAA and Consensus Policies if there were no registrars; and 4) would derail our 
work and cause a needless delay in New TLDs.

The RyC statement below just shows that it has had concerns with Recommendation 
19 since before it was approved, not that it is subject to over-creative 
interpretation on this point.  

Thanks.

Have a great weekend everyone!

Best,

Jon



On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>