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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 9 Apr 2010, at 15:42, Jon Nevett wrote:

> 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.  
> 


Just to be sure the quote I gave is not just from the Registry Constituency 
statement but from the body of the text explaining R19.  And it went further 
then stating the opinion of the Registries, it also included mention of the 
fact that the registries and registrars where, at that point reportedly 
negotiating the very issue we are discussing now.  I guess I can understand 
from the state of the current conversation that nothing was ever resolved, but 
when we voted on the recommendations, including 19, it was with the 
understanding that more information and discussion would be needed to fully 
resolve R19.  We just did not want to hold anything up while the sides 
negotiated.  And here we now are, worrying about holding anything up, yet again.

But yes, I agree, our interpretations of R19 disagree.  And I was just letting 
people know what I think  I voted for since people were speaking about what 
might have been on the minds of those voting.  As I remembered what I thought 
at the time, I thought I would add it to the mix.

As for Registries becoming accredited Registrars, assuming the cross ownership 
issue and the distribution of one's own TLD issue are resolved, it is a 
possible resolution to this quandary.  I personally think it might be overly 
bureaucratic and force new registries to take on unnecessary obligations, but 
yes, it appears to be a possiblity. 

> Have a great weekend everyone!

does that mean we have to stop working on this?

cheers

a.

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>