Re: PAB [Fwd: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft]

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

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