Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
I agree with jeff e. Would be very helpful to know what provisions of the current raa are unacceptble (or unattractive) to any potential, combined registry--registrar. Let's get these details on the table so we can start fixing things Rt Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 29, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Michael – as you stated, these are provisions in the draft Registry agreement, not the RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) which had been the topic of my email.As for the WG there has not been a major response to my initial question of what are the concerns with either signing the RAA or having a Registry agreement that incorporates the RAA? In earlier emails people were against it and was an option multiple times in the survey that was distributed, so there must be a reason people are against signing it.I was hoping we could start the dialogue on the list on this issue or others as we wait for the proposals to roll in.Jeff From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:35 AM To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA Jeff,I have a hard time reconciling your and Jon’s interpretation of ICAN N contractual regime. How about we ask ICANN’s general counsel to i nterpret the following contractual provisions in the draft registry agreement.2.9 Use of Registrars. Registry Operator must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names.2.6 Reserved Names …… If Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in theRegistry TLD (other than the Second-Level Reservations for Registry Operations from Specification 5),such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar… ….Best regards, MichaelFrom: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff EckhausSent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:45 PM To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAAI would like to ask a question to the people in this Working Group on the issue of having a Registry sign the RAA. What is the section of the RAA that people are so virulently opposed to? I believe this is an issue that may be getting muddled so would like to bring it out in the open.The RAA does not mandate that the use of Registrars in every business model. That provision is in the Registry agreement. The provision in the RAA is below that explains this issue:2.4 Use of ICANN Accredited Registrars. In order to promote competition in the registration of domain names, and in recognition of the value that ICANN-accredited registrars bring to the Internet community, ICANN has ordinarily required gTLD registries under contract with ICANN to use ICANN-accredited registrars, and ICANN will during the course of this agreement abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies requiring the use of ICANN-accredited registrars by gTLD registries.· The RAA mandates that the Registrar must abide by Domain dispute resolutions. Is this the item in the RAA that some are oppos ed to?· The requirement to escrow data?· The RAA has a schedule of fees to be paid by the Registrar . Is it the fees?· Registrar Training requirements?· Having to delete a domain within 45 days of registrar or r egistrant terminating a registration agreement ?· The requirement to maintain insurance with a limit of at l east $500,000 ?I am hoping we can discuss this issue on the list and maybe figure out what are the concerns with either signing the RAA or having a Registry agreement that incorporates the RAA?For those who have never read the RAA, here is a link to the latest version http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htmThanks Jeff
|