| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.provreg |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Paf, Michele,
Thank you both for taking the time to read my note and responding.
The point of my queries is to determine what choices are available to
one or more hypothetical JAS-Qualified [1] applicants should the (or
these) applicant(s) choose to implement one or more Registry Services
Platforms (RSPs).
This portion of the query covers the implementations of, and licensing
terms and conditions, of registry implementations.
Related, in part through the "Vertical Integration" (VI) PDP outcome, which
I personally view as disasterous, though the US DoJ and EC letters may
cure, are the implementations of, and licensing terms and conditions,
of registrar implementations.
Given the 6 quarters or more before operational deployment in the
"Transition to Delegation" phase of ICANN's new gTLD plan of record,
and my predilections as a coder, however marginal, the lack of some
feature identified in the (untested and still somewhat speculative)
ICANN Final Applicant Guidebook is not determinative. The ability of
the hypothetical JAS-Qualified applicant(s) to modify one or more
source bases to meet their immediate ends -- some several years of
operations with no significant additional investment -- is determinative.
Similarly, given the opportunity to generate revenues in the existing,
and continuous COM/NET/ORG/INFO prior to supporting the as yet undefined
business logic and EPP extensions (see prior notes on non-uniqueness) of
registries not available for the next 6 quarters of more, the utility is
in the openness of a COM and others currently existing client, not in a
closed, complete, and dead-end "solution", though these too have a use
cases.
The motivations are in two part.
First, the ICANN BoD voted to allocate $2m to assist JAS-Qualified
applicants. This money could be sprinkled as pixie dust on all of them,
or it could fund one or more RSPs, with more beneficial side effects [2].
Second, next to zero registrars exist in several ICANN regions, and under
both the VI rational, and a regional capacity building rational, this is
reasonable to alter, with, or without, new gTLDs, some of which may be
JAS-Qualified. This in response to a public comment at Singapore.
That's it in a nutshell. Data to me please PROVREG'ers if you want me to
know it.
Existing vendors that aren't going to be making their source available
under useful terms and conditions needn't bother with this.
Summary will go to the JAS WG for publication, by one, or more, of the
ALAC, GNSO and Board/Staff, or to any query.
A related query activity by another JAS WG contributor focuses on the
availability of in-kind services, which isn't quite the same question.
Eric
[1] for the moment let's assume that this term will acquire some
degree of rigor in the proximal future. "needy" or "useful" for
some definition of "need" or "use" are gestures towards that end.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg