Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

Draft Staff Manager's Issues Report for the Development of a Process for the Introduction of New or Modified Registry Services

31 October 2003

To send comments to the editor of this report, please email <pdp-reports@icann.org>.

This excerpt from the Staff Manager's Issues Report is being posted in order to provide the ICANN community with an opportunity to review the issues under consideration at this time. The recent ICANN meeting in Carthage, Tunisia was a rich source of information and discussion of the many issues involved with the development of this Issues Report. In order to fully reflect this information, the posting of the full Issues Report will be postponed until no later than 7 November 2003.

Preliminary Catalog of Issues

Based on a review of the sources, it appears that the following issues concerning new registry services are thought by at least some segment of the community to be worthy of discussion leading to policy development within the GNSO.

1. Issues Concerning the Development of Procedures

1.1 Is it possible to develop a process for evaluating the introduction of new registry services while preserving appropriate market competition?
1.2 Should the focus of a process be instead on changing registry contracts to heighten technical and stability considerations?
1.3 Is it possible to introduce any new registry services in the top level domains without affecting global interoperability of the DNS, that registry, or the Internet, regardless of the process followed?

2. Issues Concerning Current Process

2.1 Do the current registry contracts contain a process for evaluating new registry services prior to implementation?
2.2 Who performs the evaluation of new registry services under the current process
2.3 Are there sufficient enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the current process?
2.4 Who is responsible for enforcement?

3. Issues Concerning Classification of New Registry Services

3.1 Who will determine which new services are subject to the introduction process?
3.2 Will this introduction process be an adjunct to the registry contract, or will it be an element of the contract?
3.3 Will there be distinct limits to the scope of registry services to which the process is applied?
3.4 Will the existence of this process stifle innovation in registry services?

4. Issues Concerning Enactment of New Process

4.1 Should the introduction process be performed by ICANN staff, perhaps using identified experts in specific areas?
4.2 Should new registry services be reviewed prior to their introduction, or after their introduction?
4.3 Who will initiate the introduction process?
4.4 Is it reasonable to differentiate between registries based on formal or informal criteria, such as sponsored/non-sponsored; dominant/non-dominant; for-profit/not-for-profit; etc.
4.5 Is it appropriate to differentiate between public and private registries during the evaluation?
4.6 What is an appropriate time frame for the introduction process?
4.7 What will be the appeals process?
4.8 How will enforcement be managed?

5. Issues Concerning Services Competition

5.1 If new registry service is not unique to a single point of provision, will that service be opened to competition?
5.2 Will it be necessary to have the registry provide the new service, or can some new services be developed and introduced by a separate company?
5.3 Should new registry services be launched in a competitive fashion?
5.4 How should the value of uniformity of user experience of the DNS be weighed against marketplace choice and registry differentiation?

6. Issues Concerning Services Particulars

6.1 What weight should be given to the opinions of the communities served by a registry regarding new registry services, which in the case of top-level domains can be interpreted as the entire set of Internet users?
6.2 What evidence should the registry provide as to the affect of the new service on existing DNS practices?
6.3 What weight should be given to the functionality of the new registry services?
6.4 Is it sufficient for a new registry service to comply with current best practices and standards?
6.5 Should there be a method of initiating new standards requirements as a part of the process development?
6.6 If new registry services are deliverable at other points in the network besides the core of the domain, should that be a factor in the introduction process?
6.7 Will the introduction of a new registry service be extensible to other registries?
6.8 Should new registry services include an “opt-out” function?

7. Issues Concerning Non-GNSO Stakeholders

7.1 At what point in the introduction process will the non-GNSO stakeholders participate?
7.2 What weight will be given to the opinions of other stakeholders, such as the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, or the IETF, in the introduction process?
7.3 Will there be mechanisms of participation in the introduction process to ensure the appropriate technical questions are raised and answered to protect operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the DNS, that registry, or the Internet.
7.4 Will there be mechanisms of participation for other Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees?
7.5 Who will make determinations on the weight of various opinions in the final decision?

8. Issues Concerning Services not Subject to New Process

8.1 Will there be an attempt to subject existing services to the new introduction process?
8.2 Will existing services be “grandfathered” without evaluation?
8.3 If a registry service offering is not considered subject to the introduction process, will there still be timelines imposed for the introduction of the service to the DNS community?
8.4 Will there be a possibility for re-appraisal of a new registry service that is introduced without going through the introduction process?

To send comments to the editor of this report, please email <pdp-reports@icann.org>.

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers