Fwd: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Draft Recommendations Summary

[Milton Mueller]

I agree with Danny's analysis here. However, the constituency as a whole
has not discussed this issue. Note also that registrars will go berserk
about this position!

>>> Danny Younger <dannyyounger at YAHOO.COM> 9/15/2006 12:06:15 AM >>>
Mawaki,

Another issue in the Summary Report:

2.6  "The registry shall not act as a registrar with
respect to the TLD (consistent with the current
registry-registrar structural separation requirements,
for example, see clause 7.1 (b) and (c) of the .jobs
registry agreement)."

I can think of situations where there would be no
particular need for traditional registrars.  For
example, if Google decided to launch a .google TLD and
offered everyone a free domain (the same way that
Blogger offers anyone a free subdomain)...

Why in this case would the sponsoring organization
require any registrars when it could handle all of its
own registrations for free domains?  In effect, the
sponsor would be acting as a registrar with respect to
the TLD.

Also, I see nothing wrong with having a registry
pursue its own dealership model, the same way that
automobile manufacturers have car dealerships.
Instead of the TLD being offered to all registrars, it
could be offered to registrars wholly-owned by the
sponsor.  Please see the following URL for further
comments exploring the dealership competition model:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/psc/msg00018.html

The registry-registrar separation model is a legacy
that we have inherited owing to our history with
VeriSign.  We should question whether this model is
indeed sacrosanct.

best regards,
Danny

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com