Registrars: new registry services (2)

Barbara Roseman joins the meeting. Bruce Tonkin points out Twomey’s broadly-worded core question. Barbara. Have talked to comm. user constituencies; will let GC figure out what’s in scope for ICANN. Will go to outside entity asking about competition/confidentiality aspects; expertise available to GNSO.Should new services or significant changes be reviewed before or after introduction?Contract changes re stabililty/security?Dominant vs. non-dominant registries? Comm. users had asked about differentiation between sponsored/non-sponsored?Who should initiate process? Registry? Notification to ICANN, ICANN initiates? GNSO initiates? External party?Desire to have definition of services provided?Comm. users requested briefing what contracts say today.Discussion ofo time frames? What time scales?Involve other advisory bodies/SOs? Considerations from these overriding?Concern about time frame for this PDP.Time frame concerns?Additional input from registrars?Check or review for determination that something is registry service?Review of anti-trust implications? Roseman: ICANN intends to make experts available.Issues report will be posted CoB Friday, California time.Add. questions: What’s time table when service is not considered as registry service? “Registry service” covered by contract. But for non-registry service change, no contract requirement. Review of stability implications after the fact?Tonkin: Add that issues report is starting point, not end point….Suggestions to Barbara welcome, done by Friday.