Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)

[Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support.


Angie Graves


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> ** **
>
> Thanks to the drafters for their hard work!****
>
> ** **
>
> RNA Partners supports this final document.****
>
> ** **
>
> Kind regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> RA****
>
> ** **
>
> Ronald N. Andruff****
>
> RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>**
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM
> *To:* bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Hansen, Anjali
> *Subject:* [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed
> final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
>
> ** **
>
> On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment
> draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated
> RAA.   ****
>
> ** **
>
> Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on
> page 2):****
>
> ** **
>
>  Section 5.3 -- “Right to Substitute Updated Agreement”  -- provides for
> the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised “form Registrar
> accreditation agreement” into which a registrar could “elect” to enter.
>  The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from
> the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process
> and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect
> to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the
> current accreditation agreement.   ****
>
>  ****
>
>  Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to
> ICANN.   Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others
> for work on this draft.****
>
> ** **
>
> --Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> *From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM
> *To: *"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc: *"Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject: *FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA
> (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
>
> ** **
>
> ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement) for public comment. 
> (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>
> ) ****
>
> ** **
>
> Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments.  Several BC
> members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi,
> Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others
> provided ideas. (call 
> minutes<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Members+call+MAY+02+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1368100389000%20>
>  and 
> Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1368100411000>
>  )****
>
> ** **
>
> Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft.   We
> need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with
> registrars and privacy/proxy providers.****
>
> ** **
>
> Comment period closes 4-Jun.   That allows our regular 14-day review and
> approval period.  So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and
> comments regarding this draft, before 28-May-2013.****
>
> ** **
>
> Steve DelBianco****
>
> Vice chair for policy coordination****
>
> Business Constituency****
>
> ** **
>
> ** ******
>
> *From:* owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco
> *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM
> *To:* 'bc - GNSO list'
> *Subject:* [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April ****Beijing**** session on
> new RAA********
>
> ** ******
>
> ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA
> (registrar Accreditation Agreement).********
>
> ** ******
>
> The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA.
> On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process 
> (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendment-process-02apr13-en.pdf>
> )********
>
> ** ******
>
> The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid
> Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC  comments on the new RAA.****
> ****
>
> ** ******
>
> Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation.  ICANN says the
> LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”,
> incl: ********
>
>  - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, ********
>
> - obligations for registrars using Resellers, ********
>
> - greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of
> cybersquatting” is grounds for termination )********
>
> ** ******
>
>  Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since ****Toronto****.
> Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program.
> In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high
> level principles that are actually easy to enforce.   At my request, Susan
> Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has
> significant experience with P/P issues.********
>
> ** ******
>
> I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group
> on Directory Services.   Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to
> do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not
> just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA.********
>
> ** ******
>
> RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each
> registrar (except for bilateral amendments).  So negotiations won’t be a
> bottleneck for getting registrars on-board.********
>
> ** ******
>
> I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to
> service a dot-brand gTLD.  (single registrant, single-user) Such as
> transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc.    Staff and BC
> members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions.***
> *****
>
> ** ******
>
> Public comment would be valuable in these areas:  ********
>
>  Registrant rights & responsibilities.  This was drafted by registrars.***
> *****
>
> Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?)********
>
> Penalties for inaccurate data********
>
> Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries********
>
> Unilateral amendment by ICANN.  See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr********
>
> ** ******
>
>  Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for
> public comment.  Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a
> couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments. ********
>
> ** ******
>