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

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

I think what Mike may be referring to is that perhaps a registrar should be 
sanctioned based on the actions of an affiliated registry and vice versa.  That 
is not in the RAA at this time, but could easily be rectified by our group with 
a real  meaningful sanctions program for actions in an integrated 
registry/registrar.  I am preparing such a model to present to this group in 
the next couple of days.

I am not sure how we got so distracted talking about the RAA in this group.  I 
also think we are getting too fixated on labels as well.  For if the Registry 
performs both registry and registrar functions, there may not technically be a 
separate "accreditation process" for the affiliated registrar by ICANN, but 
rather just an addendum to the registry agreement that contains the applicable 
and relevant provisions, along with (as I will recommend in my proposal) 
special data protection provisions, structural separation requirements, audit 
provisions and strict sanctions that go along with violation of those.

More to follow on that one.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 11:13 PM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: 'Richard Tindal'; 'Jeff Eckhaus'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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