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

[Laura Covington <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 and echoing thanks.

As a newcomer to the group, please forgive me for stating the obvious, but --

I do want to flag that there are aspects of what we are asking for which we 
should anticipate, in the absence of automated means to accomplish, will be 
viewed as overly burdensome and onerous (and which may actually be, at the very 
least, challenging), such as the annual re-verification of contact information 
and confirming contact information by both email and phone.  To be clear, I 
absolutely support our request for these things; I just think we should also be 
thinking about compromises we can live with.

I guess in the context of ICANN, one always has to be thinking about compromise?


Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
408.349.5187

From: Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:45 AM
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx<mailto:marie.pattullo@xxxxxx>>
Cc: Chris Chaplow <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Angie 
Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Ron Andruff 
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Steve DelBianco 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Bc GNSO list 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Hansen, Anjali" 
<AHansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AHansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 
2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)

+1 to Marie's statement.  Thanks to all for your work on this.

Best,

Andy


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marie Pattullo 
<marie.pattullo@xxxxxx<mailto:marie.pattullo@xxxxxx>> wrote:
No comments from AIM, except to join in the thanks to all who have worked so 
hard to prepare this.
Kind regards
Marie

From:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of 
Chris Chaplow
Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 18:27
To: 'Angie Graves'; 'Ron Andruff'
Cc: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Bc GNSO list'; 'Hansen, Anjali'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 
2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)

+1

Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucia.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.andalucia.com<http://www.andalucia.com/>
Information about Andalucia, Spain.

De:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Angie Graves
Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013 18:16
Para: Ron Andruff
CC: Steve DelBianco; Bc GNSO list; Hansen, Anjali
Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 
2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)

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<mailto: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> 
[mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM
To: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto: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.





--
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 669-8752<https://www.google.com/voice#phones>