Comment Clarification

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To follow up with my previously submitted comment on this.

I am writing as an individual registrar and as former member of the the PDP 
Working Group.

It was and still is my understanding that any policy that applies to registrars 
would apply to all registrars equally and that by logical extension any policy 
that applied to all registrars would be passed down the chain.

However as Alan Greenberg outlines here: 
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Expired+Registration+Recovery+Policy+Workspace?focusedCommentId=38045451#comment-38045451
 

there appears to be a difference of opinion with ICANN Compliance

I am not sure what the best way of resolving this is, but perhaps Compliance 
should raise this and other issues as part of the current RAA negotiations? 


It would have been helpful to members of the PDP Working Group that this issue 
be raised _before_ the final report was published. Considering that the PDP, 
like all PDPs, is a volunteer based effort AND was open to comment and input at 
multiple times throughout the process I find it quite disappointing that ICANN 
Compliance would only raise this issue at a very late stage in the process

For the sake of clarity the dialogue between Alan (ALAC) and ICANN Compliance 
is below:

"A comment has now been made 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-errp-policy/msg00001.html) speaking against 
the language in the draft ERRP Policy paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 
(http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp/draft-policy-11oct12-en.pdf).

As a result, the ALAC now needs to decide whether to reply to this, and if so, 
what we need to say.

In order to understand the issue, I would like to know whether ICANN 
Contractual Compliance believes that the inclusion of these sections alters 
their ability to enforce the intent of the ERRP.

Specifically, it has been stated repeatedly that all obligations of a Registrar 
are unchanged if they decide to sub-contract marketing to a reseller. In this 
case, I take this to mean that the obligation to have certain information on 
the Registrar's web site also includes the reseller's website if that is the 
Registrant point-of-contact.

That would imply that what is explicit in 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 is applicable whether 
these statement are there or not, and their presence simply serves to remind 
Registrars of their obligations.

Can you please confirm if that is a correct interpretation, or if not, how you 
view it.

ICANN Contractual Compliance:

ICANN does not have the same interpretation.

The reseller obligations as stated in section 3.12.2 of the 2009 RAA focus on 
the registration agreement where, if a registrar has an agreement with its 
resellers, the agreement must require the reseller to include all registration 
agreement provisions and notices required by the ICANN Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement and any ICANN Consensus Policies (such as the information identified 
in 4.1.1 and 4.2.2 of the proposed ERRP). The reseller obligations within the 
2009 RAA do not include obligations on registrars to require the posting of 
information such as that within the proposed ERRP Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 on 
reseller websites.

Under the contracts we have in place today, the reseller website posting 
obligations in the proposed ERRP section 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 would only be enforced 
if the language is included within the ERRP."

Regards

Michele

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions ♞
Hosting & Domains
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.co
http://blog.blacknight.com/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845