> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:54:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> From: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:36:05 -0800 Kent Crispin
> <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Even if those contracts have to exist --and, as you point out,
> there are other possibilities-- I think it is very risky to make
> them part of the definition of what constitutes a registrar.
> That relationship should, IMO, be defined either in terms of the
> registrar-ICANN relationship or, at this point, in a way that
> doesn't bind the decision.
>...
> I'm quite comfortable leaving the details of this issue to the
> DNSO itself; my concern is that we don't accidentally lock in a
> policy now about which several of us seem to have reservations.
>
My thinking was the same as Kent, but find John's argument very
convincing that there needs to be a change in the definition to avoid
lock-in.
These are currently very skimpy definitions, broadly defined. I think
that is by design. I was also hoping to make the wording changes as
minor as possible to avoid too much argument.
How about:
2. Registries: a DNSO member who is a DNS Top Level Domain
("TLD") registry, defined as an entity with write authority to a
zone referenced by a TLD under a contractual relationship with
ICANN;
3. Registrars: a DNSO member who is a registrar of
generic/global or country-code TLDs, defined as an entity with TLD
update priviledges under a contractual relationship with ICANN for a
registry as defined above;
That latter bit of indirection allows the possibility that there might
be some complex relationships approved by ICANN.
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