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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff:

Is your position really that registrars don't have any obligations under the 
RAA and existing Consensus Policies, and that we should do away with Whois 
requirements for a segment of domain names?  

As I have mentioned in a prior post, there are numerous obligations on 
registrars and consumer protections in the RAA and the various Consensus 
Policies (whois requirements, data retention, UDRP, etc.).  I will simply refer 
you to the RAA itself 
(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) and to a list 
of Consensus Policies (http://www.icann.org/en/general/consensus-policies.htm). 
  When you read through them, think about every obligation that currently is on 
a registrar that would not exist if registrars didn't exist.  If ICANN permits 
some kind of vertical integration for single registrant TLDs, then you are 
correct that the RAA obligations could be incorporated into a registry 
agreement, making that entity both a registry and a registrar. 

Thanks.

Jon

On Mar 27, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>