RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

 

There would need to be an additional provision incorporated into the RAA for 
those registrars that had a co-owned / vertical integrated registry. The scope 
of the Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure would  need to apply to 
both the Registry and the Registrar, parent/child/subsidiary.

 

As I am sure J Scott and others in the IPC would want to prevent a registrar 
affiliate or a sister company engaged in affirmative acts found infringing the 
right of others  to avoid accountability merely because they funneled such 
activity through a registrar not subject to the PDDRP. In fact I believe WIPO 
in the comments have also talked about expanding the scope of the PDDRP beyond 
registries.

 

I know Jeff Neuman originally raised this in the IRT, but I believe there was 
push back from the Registrars.

 

Would you not agree Richard, Jeff E, and Jon that seems like a reasonable 
safeguard registrars would want to make?

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:19 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 iPhone


On 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 ICANN 
contractual regime.  How about we ask ICANN’s general counsel to interpret 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 the

Registry TLD (other than the Second-Level Reservations for Registry Operations 
from Specification 5),

such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar…….

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

 

I 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 opposed 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 registrant 
terminating a registration agreement ?

·         The requirement to maintain insurance with a limit of at least 
$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.htm

 

 

 

Thanks

 

Jeff