Re: Draft provreg charter

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>]

Hi Scott and all

As with much in this world ...technology is not the main issue but the political
environment in which technology may be employed....
Putting on my Registrars NC Rep's "hat" the desire to have a standard interface
to gTLDs is well overdue and most welcome. We need to ensure that the proposed
new TLDs can be introduces in a stable and efficient manner (as quickly as
possible). One issue I have is the scope and ramifications of adopting certain
technologies which certain governments are keen to control... cryptography,
international personal data exchange... etc. Thus it is a registrars legal
ability to adopt certain technologies that could confine/restrict their business
activity as registrars and .... So may I suggest inorder to progress the RRP
protocol, the obligation for Registrars/Registries to adopt the "standard" RRP
(resulting from this process) is not to the exclusion of other "less regulated"
technologies/requirements.

Continuing that theme (and putting on a ccTLD "hat") may I suggest that your
work should not impinge upon the right/ability of a ccTLD
registry to best serve the local internet community, and if that means using
email templates as the best means of communicating with a ccTLD registry ...so
it should be without any pressures to adopt more "real-time" registry/registrar
protocols..... i.e. soften the "ccTLD" registry approach to avoid "push-back".
In some of the ccTLD registry systems we administer, the use of x509
certificates are not allowed in certain jurisdictions, so we use either secure
tunnel (for real-time interface) or PGP encrypted email.

I am on vacation at the moment and thus not able to particiapte/respond to
emails etc,

Happy New Year to all.....

Paul