Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, hopefully you meant to say "20 days of public comment" and not "20
public comment periods".  I realize it is somewhat of a nuance to the text
but I'm turning 42 in Brussels and I was in my mid 20s when this new TLD
process began.

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax


On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Technically, the PDP process requires a 20 public comments period at the
> outset, which I do not believe has started.  I also believe that the Working
> Group needs to spend some time familiarizing how we got to this point as I
> know we have a number of new players.  Everyone needs to understand the
> concerns expressed by all sides in this issue to evaluate any of the
> proposals submitted.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman**
> **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy*
>
>    ------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
> delete the original message.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:16 AM
>
> *To:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal
>
>
>
> WG Colleagues:
>
>
>
> As I stated last week, I agree with Milton's thinking that we should get on
> with it and see if we can reach some kind of resolution and worry less about
> the Board's potential default position.  I also am not concerned about what
> we look to as a "baseline" -- but am more interested in what we look to as a
> solution.
>
>
>
> In the interest of moving this forward, I think that we should take a close
> look at the relevant language in the .mobi, .tel or .asia agreements on
> these points.  I have copied the .mobi language below.  It seems to strike a
> balance between the two sides of the debate that we saw in Seoul.
>
>
>
> Section 7.1(c) of the .mobi agreement keeps the .com, .net, .org, .biz,
> .info prohibition on a Registry Operator having more than 15% ownership of a
> registrar, but says that the registry could seek ICANN approval to purchase
> more than 15%.  This kind of language would permit this WG to come up with
> criteria for ICANN to use when evaluating a request for approval to exceed
> 15%, and gives ICANN and the Registry Operators some flexibility when faced
> with certain cases, including new and innovative business models.   As
> others have mentioned, a hard and fast rule would have
> unintended consequences.
>
>
>
> This .mobi language would meet the calls of some in the community to keep
> the status quo.  I think that Jeff Neuman mentioned a concern about using
> sponsored TLD language as a model.  The most recent TLDs, however, sponsored
> or not,  will more closely resemble the New TLDs than incumbent registries
> with millions of domain names already under management.
>
>
>
> It also would solve the "small registry that has a hard time getting
> registrars to sell its name" issue -- or the community issue that others
> have raised.  I suspect that most folks would not have an issue with a
> registry that doesn't have traction in the marketplace and can't get
> registrars to sell its names starting its own registrar to sell its names.
>  This language gives some latitude for ICANN to approve a waiver for a
> registry in that position.  Size and registrar penetration rates could be
> factors that ICANN takes into account in evaluating a RO's request to start
> or purchase its own registrar.  Obviously, there would need to be others.
>
>
>
> It also would address the brand or single registrant TLD issue by giving
> New TLD RO's the same ability that certain current RO's enjoy to select
> among the hundreds of registrars based on objective criteria.  Once
> selected, the RO could not discriminate against the registrars selected.  In
> other words, a broad-based registry would want to select as many registrars
> as possible, but a single registrant TLD would not have to select more than
> one.  As Avri pointed out and as the GNSO already has approved, every
> registration would need to be registered with the benefit of the
> requirements and obligations in the RAA.  Also, it would maintain the
> requirement that RO's cannot discriminate among registrars selling its
> names, but not every registrar need to be able to sell every extension.
>
>
>
> I also would suggest some tweaks to the current .mobi language -- limiting
> the 15% only to registrars that sell the registry operator's extension vs.
> any registrar.  This was the position espoused by the incumbent registry
> operators.  Therefore, an eNom-affiliate could apply for a name without
> violating the agreement, but it couldn't sell it through its affiliated
> registrar without ICANN approval.  I also would change the concept of
> "acquire" to some type of corporate affiliation as Jeff N. also suggested.
>
>
>
> As far as phasing, if folks like a modified .mobi language, we could agree
> soon on language to insert into the New TLD agreement in DAG 4.  We then
> could start on discussing and debating the criteria that ICANN should
> consider in evaluating waiver requests.
>
>
>
> I am trying to get the ball rolling with a way forward that doesn't hold up
> New TLDs and provides ICANN with some flexibility, but doesn't open the
> floodgates.  It also would give ICANN some latitude, but would give the
> community the ability to shape and restrict ICANN's discretion.
>
>
>
> I am very open to discussing other proposals as well, but let's minimize
> discussing processes and baselines and work towards solutions.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>    *.mobi Registry Agreement*
>
> *Section 7.1   Registry-Registrar Agreement.*
>
> *a.*  *Access to Registry Services. Registry Operator shall make access to
> Registry Services, including the shared registration system, available to
> ICANN-accredited registrars. The criteria for the selection of registrars
> shall be as set forth in Appendix S. Following execution of the
> Registry-Registrar Agreement between Registry Operator and the
> ICANN-accredited registrar, and subject to such registrar's compliance with
> the Registry-Registrar Agreement, Registry Operator shall provide
> operational access to Registry Services, including the shared registration
> system for the TLD. Such nondiscriminatory access to such registrars shall
> include without limitation the following:*
>
>                     *i.*        *All registrars (including any registrar
> affiliated with Registry Operator) can connect to the shared registration
> system gateway for the TLD via the Internet by utilizing the same maximum
> number of IP addresses and SSL certificate authentication;*
>
>                  *ii.*        * Registry Operator has made the current
> version of the registrar toolkit software accessible to all registrars and
> has made any updates available to all registrars on the same schedule;*
>
>                *iii.*        *All registrars have the same level of access
> to customer support personnel via telephone, e-mail and Registry Operator's
> website;*
>
>                *iv.*        *All registrars have the same level of access
> to registry resources to resolve registry/registrar or registrar/registrar
> disputes and technical and/or administrative customer service issues;*
>
>                   *v.*        *All registrars have the same level of
> access to data generated by Registry Operator to reconcile their
> registration activities from Registry Operator's Web and ftp servers;*
>
>                *vi.*        *All registrars may perform basic automated
> registrar account management functions using the same registrar tool made
> available to all registrars by Registry Operator; and*
>
>              *vii.*        *The shared registration system does not
> include, for purposes of providing discriminatory access, any algorithms or
> protocols that differentiate among registrars with respect to functionality,
> including database access, system priorities and overall performance.*
>
> *Such Registry-Registrar Agreement may be revised by Registry Operator
> from time to time, provided however, that any such revisions must be
> approved in advance by ICANN.*
>
> *b.* *Registry Operator Shall Not Act as Own Registrar. Registry Operator
> shall not act as a registrar with respect to a “domain name registration” as
> that term is defined in Section 7.2(b) below. This shall not preclude
> Registry Operator from registering names within the TLD to itself through a
> request made to an ICANN-accredited registrar.*
>
> *c.*  * Restrictions on Acquisition of Ownership or Controlling Interest
> in Registrar. Registry Operator shall not acquire, directly or indirectly,
> control of, or a greater than fifteen percent ownership interest in, any
> ICANN-accredited registrar, without ICANN's prior approval in writing, which
> approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.*
>  *
> *
>
> *Appendix S*
>
> *Part 5*
>
> *Selection of Registrars*
>
> *Subject to Registry Operator’s compliance with this Registry Operator TLD
> Registry Agreement, including all attachments and appendices thereto (the
> “Agreement”) and any Temporary Specifications or Policies or Consensus
> Policies as defined in the Agreement, and provided the scope of the Charter
> is not exceeded:*
>
> Registry Operator will select registrars from among ICANN-Accredited
> Registrars in a manner that promotes the following characteristics in the
> group of authorized ICANN-Accredited Registrars:
>
> 1. Recognition of the specific aspects of the mobile services community to
> be supported by the sTLD and a willingness to participate in that spirit;
>
> 2. Thorough understanding of the principles and goals underlying sTLD
> policies, including without limitation the domain name management policy;
>
> 3. Demonstrated ability to provide Eligibility and Name-Selection Services
> (ENS Services) and demonstrated familiarity with the needs of the sTLD
> Community in the language and region(s) served by the registrar, and
> established modes for reflecting these needs in the ENS Services processes;
>
> 4. Dedicated willingness and ability to propagate and enforce sTLD policies
> in an observant and diligent manner and in accordance with policies and
> procedures prescribed by Registry Operator;
>
> 5. Broad geographic distribution and language diversity of registrars;
>
> 6. Established collaborative contact with one or several associations
> representing Providers and Representatives (as defined in Part 3 above) in
> the language and geographical region or sector served by the registrar;
>
> 7. Dedicated willingness and ability to act together with the mobile
> communications community in the processing of registration requests.
>
> 8. Established business relationships with substantial numbers
> (proportionate to the size of the registrar) of Providers and
> Representatives in the region(s) served by the registrar;
>
> 9. Demonstrated willingness and ability to publicize and market the sTLD,
> to follow all sTLD marketing guidelines, and to develop and use sTLD
> marketing materials as appropriate, as reflected by a minimum committed
> marketing budget of an amount proportionate to the size of the registrar;
>
> 10. Demonstration that sufficient staff resources are available and able to
> interface with automated and manual elements of the sTLD registry process
> and a willingness to implement modifications and revisions reasonably deemed
> by the Registry Operator to be required based on the characteristics and
> functions of the sTLD;
>
> 11. The existence of proven systems designed to avoid submission of
> unqualified or incomplete applications that will burden the ENS system or
> make it impossible for Registry Operator to fulfill its commitments to
> ICANN;
>
> 12. The existence of proven systems to avoid transfer disputes among
> registrars;
>
> 13. Demonstrated willingness to share relevant marketing information with
> the Registry Operator, including, consistent with applicable law,
> information about current registrants with whom the registrar has
> relationships who are eligible for registration.
>
> 14. Willingness to provide reduced fee or free services to Providers and
> Representatives from developing countries who meet minimum criteria
> reasonably established by Registry Operator for special assistance; and
>
> 15. Willingness and ability to post and refresh a minimum deposit against
> which fees will be drawn.
>
> This Part 5 of this Appendix S specifies the criteria for Registry
> Operator’s selection of ICANN Accredited Registrars wishing to enter into a
> Registry-Registrar Agreement to register domain names in the sTLD. Registry
> Operator will determine the initial number of ICANN-Accredited Registrars to
> be selected and, in collaboration wit the sTLD Community, will review and
> revise its selection of registrars and registrar criteria from time to time
> as appropriate.
>
>
>