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

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

Jon,

It is precisely my position, that (1) new TLDs in the future may not need some 
of the "consumer protections" that registrars like to allege are in the RAA 
because they would not be applicable; and (2) there are no protections in the 
RAA that could not be put directly into a registry agreement for those 
registries in the future that do not need or want to use ICANN -accredited 
registrars.  

Let me give you an example, which I will state is NOT one that I know is 
applying for a TLD in this round, but is a potential TLD based on actual 
services offered today in the marketplace.  I have also extremely dummied this 
down for myself and for others.  There are a number of companies that offer 
what is known as private ENUM services which use DNS to perform lookups and to 
route traffic amongst telecommunication service providers and their 
aggregators.  It is private in that to "register" or "access" private domain 
names requires connection to the "registry" through private VPN-type 
connections and cannot be viewed or accessed by the regular public.  Billions 
of transactions per day are conducted through these private ENUM systems.  Most 
of the Private ENUM operators have never participated in the ICANN process nor 
do they have any intention to.  

However, there may be reasons that these private ENUM systems may want to be 
opened up so that public lookups, or connections through the public Internet 
are possible.  It would still essentially be a closed system, but in order to 
prevent a clash between something registered in the public root and the private 
root, it is possible that an operator of a private ENUM system may want a TLD 
in the public root.  What is important for this example is not that this exists 
today, which it does, but rather these names do not have websites, e-mail 
accounts, blogs, etc.  There is no content available to be viewed by the 
public, nor is it something a consumer ever sees.  Everything happens in the 
background invisible to the consumer.  In that circumstance, there would be no 
need for registrars, WHOIS, no need for registrar transfers, no resellers, no 
ICANN deletion policy, no UDRP, no need for an ICANN logo, etc.   In fact, one 
might argue that there is very little registry functionality needed as well :)

I took your advice and re-read the RAA.  Cutting out of the legalese, the parts 
about paying ICANN its fees and the boilerplate, below is the sum total or 
protections for consumers (Reworded in short hand by me).   


+++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. REGISTRAR OBLIGATIONS.
3.2 Submission of Registered Name Holder Data to Registry. 
        1.  Collect data from Registrant;
        2.  May be called to help reconstitute registry data in case of 
registry failure.

3.3 Public Access to Data on Registered Names - Provide public WHOIS

3.4 Retention of Registered Name Holder and Registration Data. Registrar must 
keep records 

3.6 Data Escrow - should escrow data through ICANN provider or your own
 
3.7 Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders. - Registrar must
        1.  Comply with ICANN Policy
        2.  Comply with law.
        3.  Do not activate name until you are assured of payment.
        4.  Registrar should cancel domain name if registrant does not want to 
keep it.
        5.  Registrar must provide notice of its renewal and deletion policies.
        6.  Fee for RGP must be conspicuous
        7.  Procedures if name is subject to UDRP.
        8.  Must have an agreement with each registrant requiring that 
registrant submit accurate info and failure to do so is breach.  Registrant is 
liable for all activities under domain name even if it licenses it to a third 
party.  
        9.  Registrar must tell registrant all the uses of the data it collects.
        10.  Registrant subject to disputes in its location and location of 
registrar.
        11.  Reservation of rights for registrar to delete or suspend domain 
name registration.

3.12 Obligations of Third-Party Resellers. 
1.  Reseller can't use icann logo. 
2.  Reseller must pass through all registrar obligations.
3.  Reseller shall identify the sponsoring registrar upon inquiry from the 
customer.
4.  Reseller must provide accurate info and if uses a proxy must make sure its 
customers have notice of repercussions for reseller failure.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If there are others please let me know.

Thanks.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 11:47 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'avri@xxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>