On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 02:54:54AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> That said, one might even have the registrars pay ICANN, perhaps
> by block-units of names to be registered (not unlike the ARIN
> payment model) and have ICANN pay the registry, perhaps on a
> basis less sensitive to the exact number of names involved.
>
> 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.
>
> john
You make a very good point. I am cc'ing this to the
"discuss@dnso.org" list, as well.
Perhaps we could leave contracts out of it entirely, and define
registrars in operational terms: "A registrar is an entity that has
[direct?]functional access to a registry database."
-- 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