Even under the CORE model, there is a contract between the Registrars
(the CORE members) and the Registry (CORE itself).
The real issue is not the existence (or ~not) of the contract, but its
contents. Those contents must ultimately be responsive to the legal
structure that results from the domain name wars.
One apparent alternative would be for a registry to commit itself to
accepting DN registrations from registrars who have been approved as
such by ICANN, on terms which are publicized and approved by ICANN.
The difference between that model and a contract is actually illusory:
it's
a tariff-filing model, and the relationship between any tariff-filer and
its
customers is essentially contractual.
If the relationship is not contractual, then it would end up being
quasi-governmental. The problem with _that_ approach is that the US
DOC and NTIA are likely to wish to make is truly governmental rather
than
quasi-governmental, and in that event, we don't have much of a change
from the status quo.
As long as the relationship is patently documented and subject to
approval by at least one organization which is at least in part
motivated
by the public interest, the system stands a fair chance of working and
being accepted by the Internet Community.
Final Note: definition of registry: a registry is the entity which,
acting
with the sanction of {ICANN}, regularly publishes the authoritative zone
file for the zones which have been delegated to it.
Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10104
Voice (212) 541-1066
Fax (212) 541-1346
www.cybersharque.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verbum sapientiae satis est; encyclopedia gikae non est satis;
quiconcque est tuum?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This communication is not legal advice.
If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> 01/26/99 09:36pm >>>
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