Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG Scope?

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 27 June 2011 10:44, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> > So could someone explain to me why they think it is in scope to:
> >
> > - expect that registry backend providers be based "in country". While I
> can see how that might be viewed as desirable by some people I honestly
> don't see how it is in scope.
> >
>
> Good question.
>
> I think it falls under
>
> a. C1, the requirement to propose criteria for financial support: The
> criteria of support includes budget, business plans etc..   Decision on
> which RSP to use and how much must be paid for those services are indeed
> part of the entire package that needs to be evaluated in making the granting
> decision.
>
> a. C3, the requirement to figure how to provide assistance for those
> seeking help from Registry Service providers:  Given the contracts that may
> be offered and the conditions of those contracts including the disposition
> on the indigenous resources contained in the string, the best way to provide
> such assistance might involve recommending that regional non-profit RSPs be
> established in those developing economies that do not already have them.
>

A related point regarding this -- a registry service provider can address
some of the Continued Operations Instrument (also known as the "Continuity
Instrument" or COI) requirements for registry applicants. So a RSP
fine-tuned to the particular requirements of needs-assessed applicants --
such as COI -- may be able to lower some of the non-ICANN-fee barriers to
entry.

Eric can give more far detail on this but I think that is the heart of this
particular issue, and another reason why RSP issues appear to be within the
scope of barrier-reduction to applicants.


> > - expect that this group support/assist in the creation of registrars in
> developing countries. Again, while I can see how this might be seen as being
> desirable by some I can't see how it is in scope. it's also anti-competitive
> and wide open to being abused / gamed.
>
> [...] I do agree that it does not seem to be in our current scope.  That is
> why I recommend that ALAC member work on establishing a group to work on the
> goal.
>

Agreed. I don't believe that there is any expectation that the JAS group, as
it is currently constituted and tasked, will be involved in any issues
related to registrars.

- Evan