Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Since this has been mentioned a number of times times, can someone please point 
out to me the protections afforded to registrants in the RAA and what 
accreditation icann actually does?  And to be more specific, doesn't the new 
gTLD evaluation do a much higher level of dilligence thant the registrar 
accreditation process and couldn't any protections in the raa (which I still do 
not understand what they are) be incorporated into the registry agreement?

In other words a number of the so called protections in the raa are simply a 
bi-product of having registrars in the first place.  For example, if we had no 
registrars in a tld, there is no reason for transfer rules.  If domains cannot 
be used publicly (no website or e-mail), but rather as purely a mechansim for 
routing in a single registrant tld, then there may be no need for whois 
requirements.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat Mar 27 10:34:50 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony



On 26 Mar 2010, at 23:11, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> What I was stating below in my original email is that we should continue to 
> explore vertical integration and the issues of cross -ownership, but we 
> should not introduce the issue of not using an ICANN accredited Registrar to 
> distribute the domains, whether they charge for them, give them away for free 
> or have a single registrant. If we do decide that it is OK for a single 
> entity to handle all of the functions then that entity should be 
> contractually bound by the RAA as it should be bound by the applicable 
> Registry Agreement. That was the point I was making in my email below. 


This was actually a point of conversation between Michael and I (don't remember 
discussing it with Milton) that we three decided was worth exploring in the 
questions.

I  waver of the subject.

I certainly want consumers to have any protection for registrants currently in 
the RAA or that may be added in the future.  This he agrees with, at least 
almost, I think

I also think there should be an EPP interface and the ability for registrars to 
sell the name under the Registy's defined & controlled conditions if that is 
what one of registries or resellers want to do.  On this I think we do not 
agree.

So my first thought: these registries must also be accredited as registrars.

And my automatic second thought, especially with development needs in mind, is 
to ask whether this is more then is required.

So, I personally still waver on this subject.

Finally I do not see what in the charter, precludes this topic.  It does seem 
to resemble the elephant in the room.

a.





------------------------------------------------------------
Avri Doria

- This is email sent to an ICANN oriented list.
- While a member of the NCSG, I am not speaking for the NCSG.
- As this is ICANN I am talking about, it means that any and all suggestions 
discussed in this email may provide new avenues for gaming.  It is understood 
by the author that tightening of concepts would be required as would an 
appropriate enforcement regime.