An insult to contracted parties

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear ICANN,

I submit these comments on behalf of Key-Systems GmbH, a German 
registrar. I am a councillor for the RrSG on the GNSO Council.
We support the comments submitted by the Registrar Stakeholder Group, 
the Registry Stakeholder Group and NTAG.
Key-Systems further believes that these new additions contain certain 
elements that are deeply troubling.
Requirement to use registrars under the 2013 RAA:
The requirement to only accredit Registrars that have signed on to a 
yet-unfinished agreement under the pretext of "public interest" is an 
insult to over a thousand honest businesses as it implies that allowing 
registrars under the current agreement would be against the public 
interest. For this stark claim, ICANN has offered no word of 
explanation. Registrars that have provided quality service under the 
2009 agreement are - by this reference - declared to be unfit for 
participation in the distribution channel of the new gTLDs, without any 
rationale beyond ICANN desiring it to be so and claiming this 
requirement to rest in the "public interest".  As the comments by the 
RrSG, the RySG and NTAG aptly point out, the opposite is true. It would 
be against the public interest to create such an artificial 
differentiation between registrars on the basis of what agreement they 
are under. The proposal ignores the contributions of registrars to the 
public interest. There has been no community call for such an amendment, 
no community consultation and no community support. Key-Systems calls 
upon ICANN to remove this insulting provision and come up with a better 
proposal of how to incentivize registrars to adopt a new agreement 
sooner rather than later that does not create an abitrary hurdle to 
offering a wide range of consumer choice and competition.
Ability to unilaterally amend:
With this proposal (which has for good reasons been rejected by the 
community and the ICANN board in the past) ICANN ultimately proposes to 
abolish the multi-stakeholder model and hold registries and registrars 
hostage to its whims. If any clause of the contract becomes subject to 
unilateral revision by the ICANN board, the picket fence is abolished 
and registrars will be unable to rely on any contractual provision 
negotiated with ICANN in the past. Instead of elevating the industry, 
ICANN proposes to control it completely.
The manner and timing in which this proposal was raised from the dead at 
a point where applicants are desperate to get their new TLDs launched 
sooner rather than later and where negotiation of even the simplest 
clauses of the agreement will cause them to be pushed back in the queue 
raises several questions, none of which help build a positive image of 
ICANN as a model of proper multi-stakeholderism. Why defend this model 
against governmental control when ICANN proposes to take the same level 
of control for itself and circumvent the multi-stakeholder model in its 
entirety? Like the propsal discussed above, this  proposal is either 
very badly conceived, or an intentional and unprecedented power-grab.
"Whois Expert panel":
While Key-Systems applauds the efforts of ICANN to reform the WHOIS or 
create a better replacement, we do not believe that the resuls of the 
discussions of an expert group chosen by ICANN without community input 
should  be adopted without community consensus. There frankly is no need 
for this automatic implementation clause. Once the expert panel has 
published its results, these should be confirmed by the community 
through proper GNSO precesses and become binding policy. Should the 
community choose not to adopt these results as policy, the reason for 
that may be some flaw that should be adressed. We therefore call upon 
ICANN to rely on the established community policy-making processes.
In closing, Key-Systems perceives a the above proposals as an 
unprecedented power grab by ICANN to the benefit of the ICANN board and 
the detriment of the community, as well as a step in the direction of 
transforming the multi-stakeholder model we have spend years building 
and defending into a top-down organization structure. This is not 
elevating the industry. This is not defending the multi-stakeholder 
model. This is the opposite. We urge ICANN to reconsider and remove 
these amendments now.
Best regards,

Volker Greimann
General Counsel - Key-Systems GmbH
GNSO councillor