Thanks Bruce. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 02 April 2014 04:14 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] new gTLD recommendations from the GNSO related to the use of registrars Hello All, For a little historical context to the recent request from the Board. The GNSO produced a final report on a set of recommendations for introducing new gTLDs in August 2007: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The recommendations were approved by the Board in June 2008: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-26jun08-en.htm#_T oc76113171 Nearly 5 years ago :-) The relevant recommendation with respect to the use of registrars is number 19: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." The relevant discussion in the final report stated: "Recommendation 19 Discussion -- Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars. i. This recommendation is supported by all GNSO Constituencies and Ms Doria. ii. There is a long history associated with the separation of registry and registrar operations for top-level domains. The structural separation of VeriSign's registry operations from Network Solutions registrar operations explains much of the ongoing policy to require the use of ICANN accredited registrars. iii. In order to facilitate the stable and secure operation of the DNS, the Committee agreed that it was prudent to continue the current requirement that registry operators be obliged to use ICANN accredited registrars. iv. ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement has been in place since 2001[77]. Detailed information about the accreditation of registrars can be found on the ICANN website[78]. The accreditation process is under active discussion but the critical element of requiring the use of ICANN accredited registrars remains constant. v. In its CIS, the RyC noted that "...the RyC has no problem with this recommendation for larger gTLDs; the requirement to use accredited registrars has worked well for them. But it has not always worked as well for very small, specialized gTLDs. The possible impact on the latter is that they can be at the mercy of registrars for whom there is no good business reason to devote resources. In the New gTLD PDP, it was noted that this requirement would be less of a problem if the impacted registry would become a registrar for its own TLD, with appropriate controls in place. The RyC agrees with this line of reasoning but current registry agreements forbid registries from doing this. Dialog with the Registrars Constituency on this topic was initiated and is ongoing, the goal being to mutually agree on terms that could be presented for consideration and might provide a workable solution." Regards, Bruce Tonkin