Re: Why Interim Meetings?

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>]

At 2:22 PM +0100 1/19/01, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>Hi SCott,
>
>     The VeriSign gTLD registry is one.  While we're functioning
>     with the existing NSI RRP, there are needed improvements and
>     additional capabilities that require use of a new protocol.
>
>Yes of course. But I was wondering wether there are more. This to
>avoid discussions like ``these monopolistic idiots of NSI are
>forcing us to do this and we now need to invest in this technology
>but we don't have money, they want to kill us, they took over the
>IETF, look what they did with the power situation in California,
>global warning'' and similar rants.
>
>I vaguely remember once discussing the idea of a registration
>protocol with another registry quite some time ago but forgot which
>one.

Over the next few months, it is likely that several new gTLDs will be 
appearing (the seven provisionally approved by the ICANN board). 
Many of these emerging TLDs would very much like to implement a 
standard RRP, but there's also the market reality that these new 
registries have to get up and running in the relatively near future. 
That means that the window of opportunity for us to get this protocol 
adopted in a number of places very quickly (which I think would be 
nice, and give us some good operational experience for other TLDs who 
already have registration mechanisms in place) is rapidly closing.


>Another group which should be interested is the other R in RRP:
>the registrars. Registrars which deal with different TLD's have
>questioned why there is not a standard way to register domains and
>that it is a lot of work to figure out the different procedures
>etc.  Although, when they have figured it out they loose interest.
>(Because now this knowledge gives them an advantage over competitor,
>as one told me).

We have been using the NSI RRP for as long as anyone except NSI, and 
have extensive experience doing registrations with a lot of ccTLDs, 
but I can tell you categorically that we would much rather have a 
common protocol than leverage whatever minor competitive advantage 
you think we might be able to eek out of the existing arrangement.

As a registrar, we want a gRRP soon--in time for the new gTLDs to 
implement them so we don't have to write code and do extensive 
testing with a bunch of new gTLDS, and also to deal with the 
increasing number of ccTLDs that it seems will be adopting 
registry/registrar models.  This means we want a robust protocol that 
supports the needs of both the gTLDs and the ccTLDs, and we want it 
to do a good job, but a lot of the benefit is lost for us if we don't 
have something fairly well hammered out in the very near future.

Jordyn