After a long talk with Kent, I think that I understand better some of the
underlying assumptions and pressures that were raised in the DC meeting.
I think that the IAHC/POC/CORE model can be transparently merged with
the ICANN/DNSO model, although the addition of ccTLDs (should that
happen) adds a twist.
Under both models, the registries are contractors. ICANN/DNSO merely
shifts the body that signs the contracts. Where before it was CORE, the
contracting authority moves up a level to ICANN, leaving DNSO as giving
advice and consent. CORE merges into DNSO under the registrar
constituency.
Moreover, this plan corresponds fairly nicely with the model for IANA,
where IAB designates (contracts), while IANA provides input to IETF
through an ex-officio non-voting liaison to IESG.
So, to make this paradigm work, the registry constituency needs to be
strictly limited to those registries that are under contract to ICANN.
This model could bring in those registries that are used by ccTLDs as
well, as long as they contract with ICANN under DNSO selection rules.
Other ccTLDs that run their own registries would not be part of DNSO.
I also opine that it doesn't matter whether the registries are
for-profit or non-profit. Since they are on a regular contract for a
limited term, it only matters that they are inexpensive and well-run.
> > From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin@mci.net]
> > (ii) Under the model that seems to be evolving, the registry is
> > either a contractor of ICANN or a completely independent entity
The DNSO bylaws need to more clearly specify the membership of the
registry constituency. DNSO should not be overly concerned about other
"independent entities" that are not playing with the same rules.
> > and it, and not ICANN or the DNSO, charters and authorizes
> > registrars. In that model, the registry probably needs voting
> > representation, and so do the registrars. In spite of the
> > contractual representation, their interests are quite different.
> >
The key is that they should not have voting rights in the organization
that _approves_ their contracts. Keeping it down in the DNSO should be
OK, although I prefer the ex-officio technique being used in IETF.
And as above, if they are not contracting with ICANN and open to all
DNSO registrars, then they don't belong in DNSO. This must be made
clear in the DNSO bylaws.
> From: "Shaw, Robert" <Robert.Shaw@itu.int>
> Auction the rights? .tv has taught us a lesson with single registrations
> in the US$ 1,000.-- range and people would scream that it's unfair to
> developing countries. Competitive bid the rights? - I imagine there are
> lots of companies who would do it for free for leveraging an extremely
> lucrative customer database to which they can cross-sell other services
> (e.g., digital certs). Do you really want this? Lottery? - don't believe
> it would be politically acceptable.
>
I would _not_ expect the selection rules to be put into the DNSO bylaws.
They could change. They are policy. They would need to be approved by
ICANN.
To get this done in the next 2 weeks, we need to stick to structure, and
punt on policy.
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:38 PST