On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:22:11PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:50:04 +0000 (GMT) William Allen
> Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> wrote:
>
> >...
> > 3. Registrars: a DNSO member who is a registrar of
> > generic/global or country-code TLDs (defined as an entity with a
> > direct contractual relationship with a registry as defined
> > above),
>
> I think it got lost in the previous comments (mine and, I
> think, Bob's), but I believe that it would be a mistake for
> the registrars to be contractually tied to the registries
> (absent the CORE model). ICANN should be qualifying the
> registrars and presumably building contracts with them, not
> the registries (the latter model has tremendous potential
> for abuse).
As we have seen... However, my thinking has been that the registry
has to be paid by the registrar (in advance, probably) for each
name registered, and the standard way to formalize such a
relationship is a contract. How do you address this issue?
> I don't know that this point, which is certainly
> controversial, needs to be settled now, but the language
> chosen shouldn't bind us to one solution or the other. You
> could even say "direct contractual relationship with a
> registry or with ICANN" if we can't come closer to
> agreement.
I have just assumed that there will be a contractural relationship
between a registrar and registry, but, as you point out, it wouldn't
necessarily have to be that way -- ICANN could license registrars
directly, and require registries (gTLD registries, at least) to
honor all licensed registrars...
Comments?
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:38 PST