Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

At the open forum yesterday I spoke to the issue of an absence of a
contractual relation between RSPs and ICANN, which appears as sub-item
(c) of the second exception in your proposal of the 22nd.

The points I made to the Board were the necessity of access to
technical data beyond the SLA data disclosure contained in the current
registry agreements for research use, available from RSPs, a point
I've tried to convey to Steve Crocker, and the duplication of effort,
at cost, of evaluating multiple applications using any given RSP.

A point I did not make in that venue, but have made within the GNSO
Council Operations Work Team (OWT), is that circa 2000, the
then-incumbent com/net/org registry operator plus registry service
provider monopoly did not obstruct the then-entrant new gTLD
applicants from registry policy and competitive policy development.

It is unfortunate, but the stakeholder group which represents registry
interests in the structure of the Generic Name Supporting Organization
has adopted rules that exclude registry services providers which lack
a contractual relationship with ICANN.