ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Opposed to including URS in the .pro registry agreement

  • To: comments-cat-renewal-28may15@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Opposed to including URS in the .pro registry agreement
  • From: Gregg McNair <ggg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 04:24:02 +1000

To: comments-pro-renewal-28may15@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Opposed to including URS in the .pro registry agreement
From: Dr. Gregg McNair <ggg@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 08:44:27 -0400

Dear Sir,

I am writing in regard to the Proposed Renewal of .PRO Sponsored TLD
Registry Agreement issued for public comment on May 28, 2015.

I am strongly *opposed* to the inclusion of the Uniform Rapid
Suspension (URS) in the registry agreement.

All the new gTLD RPMs were implementation details of the new gTLD
and are not ICANN consensus policies applicable to all registries and
registrars. The URS can become a consensus policy only after a full
development process (PDP) engaged in by the entire ICANN community of
stakeholders. The ICANN community has not even received the new gTLD RPM
Issues Report that staff will be providing to the GNSO in September

Imposing URS on an incumbent gTLD via the contracting process is an
absolutely unacceptable staff intervention into the policymaking
Approval of this draft contract would constitute top-down, staff-driven
policymaking in direct violation of ICANN’s stated commitment to the
bottom-up, private sector led policy development process.

The URS is an untested RPM that was incorporated into the launch of
the new gTLDs.  Any registrant of a new gTLD knew that the URS was
part of their registration agreement.  The situation is far different
from those who have registered the hundreds of millions of domains
under .com, .net, .org, .cat, .pro, .travel and other legacy
extensions.  The imposition of URS on these legacy extensions would
weaken the ownership rights to all owners of legacy domains on which
the current robust Internet is built.  It is wholly illegitimate to
undermine the foundation of ownership rights in legacy domains through
staff usurping the role of the stakeholder community to develop

URS should be removed from the agreement, along with all other
provisions derived from the new gTLD RA that are not established
consensus policies applicable to incumbent gTLDs.

I also write in support of the comments submitted on the .travel
renewal which raises nearly identical issues by Phil Corwin, Jay
Chapman, Rook Media, George Kirikos, Robin Gross and eCorp.

Thank you for your consideration.



Dr. Gregg McNair 
Group Chairman,
PPX International, Inc., 
c: +1 512 698 0407 
e: ggg@xxxxxx 
s: gemcnair

co.com | Igloo.com I Internet.bs I dmpro.com I FutunaBlue.com I
LocateRealEstate.com I Quotes.com

Confidentiality Statement:This message and any attachments are solely
for the individual addressees named above and others who have been
specifically authorized to receive such and may contain information
which is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message
and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately
and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy