Registrars: I just received the following e-mail from Kurt Pritz about the pending .museum registry agreement. Based on various registrar comments last month, ICANN and the .museum registry have agreed to reduce the number of names at issue to 4,000 and to reduce the scope of what the registry could do with them. From my perspective, the provision is far from ideal, but sufficiently unique to characteristics of the .museum registry that it would be difficult to use as a precedent for other registries. Thanks. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:pritz@icann.org] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:54 AM To: Nevett, Jonathon Subject: museum agreement All: After many email exchanges, discussion and iterations between Registrar constituency members, the following contract language has been developed for the .museum registry contract renewal. It provides that the .museum can maintain a certain amount of names. Many on this list may recall a discussion between the RC and Cary Karp in the Lisbon meeting. This language resulted from the discussion in that meeting and several off-line exchanges since then. It is a combination of those suggestions and so it does not match any one set of suggested language. Substantively, language providing for the "registration" of names was removed. Also, the number of names was reduced to 4000. (I think an argument for reducing the number more is reasonable however, I also think .museum will be among the early users of IDN so there should be some allowance for multiples of names.) The new language also sets apart .museum from the situations in other registries. I think this contract language should be approved and, in this forum, seek to gain the assent, or at least silence, of registrar constituency members on this issue. I don't believe this clause sets a precedent. The maintenance of these names is intended to replace the wildcard functionality that .museum is currently permitted to employ according to their current agreement. No other registry has this concession in their agreement so this particular set of reasons for providing for maintenance of names will not exist again. Also, 4000 is still an exceeding small number of names when measured against any framework. Additionally, .museum will continue to use ICANN accredited registrars when fees are received for registrations. Also, .museum is seeking to partner with an existing registrar or cause the creation of an accreditation that can handle all registration requirements. Presently, the Sponsor is undertaking significant organization changes that make it difficult to conclude such an arrangement during this period of contract renewal. Therefore I believe, this measure, involving just 4000 names, is appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to consider this and your participation in this discussion earlier. It is important to wind this up at his time. If you wish to discuss this, please try to reach my on my mobil phone: +1-310-400-4184. Regards, Kurt The new language: "Recognizing that: i) the charter of the .museum top-level domain is sufficiently restrictive so that it has appeal to a small, identifiable and limited community, and that said restrictions have created conditions that substantially limit market demand and as a result, registrar uptake; ii) MuseDoma is a not-for-profit entity as is the community it is required to serve by the definition of its charter; and iii) MuseDoma makes available to its community members under certain conditions, at no cost, third-level domain names. Therefore, MuseDoma is permitted to maintain up to 4,000 domain names directly with the Registry Operator and keep these names under direct management for purposes stated in iii) of this Section until the conclusion of its designation by ICANN as the Sponsor for the Sponsored TLD."