I agree with Danny's analysis here. However, the constituency as a whole has not discussed this issue. Note also that registrars will go berserk about this position! >>> Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> 9/15/2006 12:06:15 AM >>> Mawaki, Another issue in the Summary Report: 2.6 "The registry shall not act as a registrar with respect to the TLD (consistent with the current registry-registrar structural separation requirements, for example, see clause 7.1 (b) and (c) of the .jobs registry agreement)." I can think of situations where there would be no particular need for traditional registrars. For example, if Google decided to launch a .google TLD and offered everyone a free domain (the same way that Blogger offers anyone a free subdomain)... Why in this case would the sponsoring organization require any registrars when it could handle all of its own registrations for free domains? In effect, the sponsor would be acting as a registrar with respect to the TLD. Also, I see nothing wrong with having a registry pursue its own dealership model, the same way that automobile manufacturers have car dealerships. Instead of the TLD being offered to all registrars, it could be offered to registrars wholly-owned by the sponsor. Please see the following URL for further comments exploring the dealership competition model: http://forum.icann.org/lists/psc/msg00018.html The registry-registrar separation model is a legacy that we have inherited owing to our history with VeriSign. We should question whether this model is indeed sacrosanct. best regards, Danny __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com