[At-Large] Pre-Qualification for Registry Services Providers

[Bret Fausett]

The note below is disappointing. I'd really like to see the reports on  
this, because companies with existing, operational registries have a  
lot to gain by spreading FUD about the difficulties of this process.

The background here is that pre-qualification was proposed as a  
mechanism to level the playing field at the application phase between  
incumbents and new market entrants. If you are doing away with pre- 
qualification, how are you going to ensure that new market entrants  
with the technical wherewithal to run a registry have an equal  
opportunity to have their application approved?

       -- Bret


On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:43 PM, At-Large Staff wrote:
> Backend Registry Certification Not Available in First Round -- On 31  
> January
> 2008, ICANN posted an announcement
> (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-31jan08.htm)  
> to inform
> the community that it was exploring a potential initiative for the
> certification of backend registry operators for new gTLDs. ICANN  
> staff has
> determined not to proceed with this initiative in the first round of  
> the new
> gTLD process. The initiative was suggested as a possible means to  
> streamline
> the application process for new gTLDs and to create a pool of pre- 
> qualified
> registry operators who could provide assistance in the event of a  
> registry
> failure. Exploration of the initiative was also prompted by  
> inquiries from
> community members who expressed the potential positive aspects that  
> creation
> of the certification might promote.
>
> During the exploration of the initiative, ICANN consulted with the  
> community
> including technical experts and gTLD and ccTLD registries and registry
> service providers. Potential operational benefits and risks of  
> implementing
> the initiative were assessed. Ultimately, a decision was made to not  
> proceed
> with certification as part of the initial new gTLD application round  
> based
> upon a number of factors. Some of these are: additional assessment  
> as to
> effects certification might have on the marketplace, e.g., whether the
> implementation might cause expansion or contraction; additional
> collaboration with the community as to the terms of such a  
> certification;
> and weighing the potential post-certification activities including  
> ongoing
> testing, re-certification and the introduction of new compliance  
> activities.
> It was also deemed important to be able to assess the positive and  
> negative
> aspects of the new gTLD implementation without possible crossover  
> effects of
> this additional certification. This independence of interactions can  
> be
> better assured by introducing the certification (if it is deemed  
> appropriate
> after additional analysis) at a later date.
>
> Both ccTLD and gTLD backend registry operators can still offer to  
> provide
> registry services to new gTLDs. The Request for Proposals for new  
> gTLDs,
> when published, will detail the minimum technical criteria and
> pre-delegation check requirements that must be met by every  
> applicant prior
> to the approval of their TLD for insertion into the root. New gTLD
> applicants might choose to build their own registry infrastructure and
> systems, retain the services of an existing gTLD or ccTLD registry  
> services
> provider, or contract with another technical services provider. (8  
> August
> 2008)