PAB FW: BOUNCE pab@gtld-mou.org: Non-member submission from ["vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>]

["Johansson, Asa" <Asa.Johansson@itu.int>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	owner-pab@gtld-mou.org [SMTP:owner-pab@gtld-mou.org]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 27, 1999 03:54  
> To:	owner-pab@gtld-mou.org
> Subject:	BOUNCE pab@gtld-mou.org:    Non-member submission from
> ["vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>]   
> 
> From pab-owner@ties.itu.ch  Wed Jan 27 03:54:10 1999
> Received: from NOD.RESTON.MCI.NET (nod.Reston.mci.net [166.45.6.38])
> 	by ties.itu.ch (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id DAA08253
> 	for <PaB@gtld-mou.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:54:08 +0100 (MET)
> Received: from vcerf.reston.mci.net ([166.45.18.100])
>  by shoe.reston.mci.net (PMDF V5.2-29 #33823)
>  with SMTP id <01J70FO76G6C8WW41J@shoe.reston.mci.net> for
> PaB@gtld-mou.org;
>  Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:53:33 EST
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:48:41 -0500
> From: "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>
> Subject: Re: PAB [Fwd: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft]
> In-reply-to: <SIMEON.9901262011.W@dataarch1.mci.net>
> X-Sender: vcerf@shoe.reston.mci.net
> To: John C Klensin <klensin@MCI.NET>,
>         William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
> Cc: PaB@gtld-mou.org
> Message-id: <01J70FO7AG9Y8WW41J@shoe.reston.mci.net>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> References: <11755.wsimpson@greendragon.com>
> 
> fully agree that registrars and registries should be entirely
> unbound.
> 
> vint
> 
> At 08:22 PM 1/26/99 -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).
> >
> >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.
> >
> >    john
> > 
> =================================================================
> 
> See you at INET'99, San Jose, CA, June 22-25,1999 
> http://www.isoc.org/inet99/
>