Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] The missing part

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I propose that registry back-end operators, current and prospective,
upon meeting some reasonable criteria for safety and security, be
allowed to offer registry back-end service for current, and
prospective, registries.

Roberto, you may recognize this as the original, IHAC period SRS
proposal, which then proposed to create the locus of competition in
the registry function, rather than in the registrar function.

This would mean, that to pick numbers arbitrarily, that a registry
operator would be able to offer .com registry service, through the
.com registry operator, in competition with the existing, monopoly
back end registry services operator for .com, to registrars, for $1
per domain year, in competition with the current pricing of $6 per
domain year.

The Vertical Integration policy recommendation is to require registry
operators to provide equal access to competitive registry back-end
operators, and to provide neutral pass-through pricing to registrars.

This proposal is distinct from all other current proposals, which
leave the registry function an unfied, monopoly held by the merged
back-end services provider and the registry operator.

As an example, CORE could provide registry back-end services for names
in .com, .net and .name, which the registrars could select, for
whatever reasons they, their resellers, the registrants or their
proxies, choose, price included.

Thank you for asking what was missing, we've focused on the registrar
and the consumer interest, and overlooked the registry and the
consumer interest.

Eric

On 4/28/10 7:18 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> In a previous message of mine I wrote "see below", and…. There was
> nothing below.
> The point I wanted to make is that it is high time to close the
> door/window/hole/pipe/… for new proposals.
> Mikey and myself had a chat today, and ended up in agreement (this is
> actually becoming boring, where are the good old times when co-chairs
> where bitterly fighting?) that we are moving from a phase in which we
> have proposals to choose from to a phase in which we have to analyse the
> items in each proposal.
> 
> In simple words, if anybody would present a new proposal now, I bet it
> would be at least 90% covered by some other proposal already on the
> table. So why not simplify the life of everybody, and instead of
> presenting a full proposal, you don't just say: "On item XYZ, we believe
> the right approach is blahblahblah".
> 
> We are already starting identifying the "atomic elements" (please
> forgive me for the reference to my day job) in the "molecular"
> proposals, Mike Zupke has already a first shot on this. I think that
> more molecules would not add much more to the discussion, so why don't
> we focus on the atoms? Mikey and myself would be inclined to close the
> window for new proposals, so if you *really* have a new approach you
> want to submit as a proposal, please do tell us in the next 24h,
> otherwise we will close the window.
> 
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>