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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike:

First, Richard's question was what are the provisions in the current RAA that 
you would have concerns with applying to an integrated registry-registrar.  I 
don't think he asked what changes to the RAA would you want to see.  

Second, I'm not sure what you heard about the internal IRT discussions, but you 
must have forgotten that the IRT actually recommended that the Post Delegation 
Dispute Resolution Procedure should take into account misconduct by affiliated 
registrars with regard to PDDRP sanctions.  This is consistent with the recent 
change to the RAA -- approved by the registrars -- regarding group liability.  
Under the new RAA, a registrar now may be sanctioned based on the acts of an 
affiliated registrar.

Thanks.

Jon
 

On Mar 29, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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
>  
>