I wouldn't bother asking the question about associations. To me, it
has already been answered. Nothing prevents any group of
individuals/entities from forming an association and applying
(providing they meet the criteria and post the bond of course). If I
didn't think there were already too many players I would do it myself.
I expect there to be a shake-up in a few months as people find out
that being a registrar is not a license to print money but a ticket to
service-desk purgatory until they learn (at the expense of their
customers) that DNS service requires time, lots of patience, and of
course, money. But that's another story.
As for 10, what question would you have me ask ICANN?
Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> I think some of these questions ought rightly to be addressed to
> ICANN as well as NSI, particularly number 10, about CORE. Core is
> not a registrar. Why have they been granted accredited registrar
> status, then, by ICANN? If CORE is acceptable in the accredited
> registrar function, what's to keep ISPs and registrars outside CORE
> from forming an association and becoming accredited as an
> association?
>
>
> Dan Steinberg a �crit:
> >
> > Chuck (I know you are out there somewhere...)
> >
> > Could you answer a few hypothetical questions (or direct these
> > questions to the appropriate person at NSI?)
> >
> > 1. Someone registers a domain which is later challenged by a TM
> > holder using NSI's 'fatally flawed dispute policy'. The domain is put
> > on hold. Seeing this, the registrant decides to pay a few bucks and
> > change registrar to one that doesn't have the same dispute policy.
> > Question: what will happen? Will NSI the registry honor the transfer
> > request? If so, will it accept the change in status to 'active' once
> > the new registrar is responsible and tells "NSI the registry" that the
> > domain status should be active?
> >
> > 2. Same fact pattern, except the change takes place at renewal time
> > and the registrar informs NSI one day later (After the renewal has
> > been successfully processed).
> >
> > 3. In some jurisdictions, the 'indemnify and hold harmless' clauses
> > are considered to be against public policy (or public order in civil
> > law jurisdictions). Will NSI refuse to honor registrations from
> > countries where the clause could be struck down by their local
> > courts? Will NSI let registrars deal with this? Who will be on the
> > hook for costs should a registrant actually get through the system and
> > manages to register a domain using a false address (one in a country
> > that does not hold such clauses to be against public policy)?
> >
> > 4. Same fact pattern except assume that NSI decides to not be in the
> > business of policing jurisdictions (a much safer approach, IMHO).
> > Assuming a registrant gets through and registers, who is on the hook
> > for the costs? NSI? the registrar? Certainly not the registrant who
> > can get the hold harmless clause struck down where they live and get
> > off scott-free (beam me up scottie <g>).
> >
> > 5. Under the registrar license agreement, who is ulitmately
> > responsible for the validity of the information supplied by the
> > registrar to the registry?
> >
> > 6. By what right does the registrar have authority to grant any form
> > of license to the registry (under 2.5) for the data elements such as
> > SLD name? Does this mean that without such a right, NSI could not
> > operate a registry?
> >
> > 7. Is there a list of names that cannot be registered because of
> > statute or regulation under 2.14?
> >
> > 8. Does the existence of 2.14 infer that all other names are possible?
> >
> > 9. 5.2 appears to imply an end to the 'register now, pay later' system
> > for domains. Will NSI follow this policy that it is apparently
> > imposing on registrars? Or does it simply mean that registrars are
> > free to front the money to registrants as long as NSI (the registry)
> > is paid?
> >
> > 10. Under 3.2 and 6.9, it appears that the registry cannot sublicense
> > their rights to register domains. At least one organization already
> > accepted (CORE) consists of a number of separate entities with the
> > 'core' component consisting of a registry (not a registrar). How will
> > the CORE structure (and any other entity that either by nature or by
> > economic necessity wishes to distribute its registration funcion to
> > other related entities) be accomodated by 3.2 without prejudicing the
> > rights of others to operate their business in an optimal manner?
> >
> > 11. What would be the effect of 6.1(e) (bankruptcy provision) given
> > that at least one entity is composed of multiple sub-entities, at
> > least one of which might be expected to go bankrupt?
> >
> > 12. How would 'another licensed registrar' be selected in the event of
> > termination under 6.1(f)?
> >
> > 13. There is no number 13. I think I have given you enough for one
> > day.
> >
> > 14. Oh, and one more thing...
> > Is it because of all of the above issues that you inserted 6.13?? <G>
> >
> > Have a nice weekend.
> >
> >
> > Dan Steinberg
> >
> > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > 35, du Ravin
> > Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
> > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> > J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
