Registry services statement
The unsponsored registries have released a statement about the new draft Issues Report. You can read it here.
As I've said in the past, my personal view is that the registries should suggest their own process for Registry Services price/specification agreements with ICANN. This process could involve a suggestion by a registry that a particular service is indeed a Registry Service, as that term is defined in the agreement that registry has signed, and a request for agreement to a proposed price (if no specification issues are raised). If ICANN failed to respond to that request within a specified time, the Registry Service price that has been proposed should be added to the agreements and the registry should go ahead with that service. The registries have an interest in clarity and freedom of innovation, and ICANN has an interest in oversight; this process would address both of these sets of concerns. ICANN should be required to keep confidential any information for which such treatment is appropriate.
This new process would require a modest change to the existing registry agreements, but would actually be an implementation of the standards already set by these agreements.
My personal view is that ICANN should reject entirely the idea that there should be a PDP with respect to this contractual issue. This is not “policy” — this is ICANN's internal process with respect to approving contractual proposals made by registries. If any constituency wants to suggest the creation of a new consensus policy that would be binding on all registries, they are free to do so.
Comments
Got something to say?