On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, at 14:32 [=GMT+0800], Horacio T. Cadiz wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > It is not that I refuse to see the point. What I refuse is to be
> > tricked into agreeing to a set of leading questions (in lieu of a
> > proper problem description), based on an incident that has only
> > vaguely to do with the issue of the PDP. The conclusion of the whole
> > thing should be that Verisign tricked us into a topic that has nothing
> > to do with Sitefinder, because it is _not_ a new service, but an abuse
> > of an old service.
> >
> > This whole text is of the level of "Why did you beat your wife?".
>
>    I agree with Marc here that ICANN seems to be justifying a new set of
> services based on an erroneous issue.
>
>    A question for Marc though.  Even if Sitefinder is *NOT* a new service,
> shouldn't we still be talking about how new services should be phased in?

What are "new services"? The Waiting List Service (or whatever it is
called now) of Verisign certainly was. Why do we not start from
evaluating the way that was dealt with by ICANN?

I am not looking for a definition of "new services". But some more
examples. Are there that many we can think of? Are there that many the
registries can think of? Is the level where new services are supposed
to be offered the registRAR level?