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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Isn't that the question for the 2nd phase?

a.

On 30 Mar 2010, at 15:02, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Jeff, I like your comment about this being a 2-way street, so I am sure you 
> and the rest of the group will then support a recommendation out of this 
> group that all existing contracts with ALL incumbent registries that contain 
> any provisions that are more restrictive be amended to include the less 
> restrictive language.  Of course, if the new rules are more restrictive, then 
> the group will recommend the converse…that ICANN add the restrictions to the 
> existing agreements…..
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> 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 Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:52 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
>  
>  
> As for the past process, this was not a negotiation with one side having to 
> concede points to the other and should not be thought of that way. If it was, 
> then the two parties to the negotiation would be able to jointly make a 
> decision after they reached a compromise, which we know was never an option.  
> I am not a lawyer, but I would think when you are trying to make your case to 
> a 3rd party that decides , you plead your case as hard as you can and hope to 
> win. This was the status of the world we were living in before the Board 
> decision, but now we are in a PDP, so lets work within that world.
>  
> Switching topics , I would like to bring up a point for discussion that I 
> think is being missed here, is that if there is Vertical Integration , 
> registries will now be able own registrars and run a registrar. This is not a 
> one way move where only registrars will be able to be a registry. It is a two 
> way street .
>  
> In truth, not all registrars are asking for an opening of the marketplace to 
> a vertically integrated suppliers where registries will now be able to 
> compete.  I know this is not a perfect example, but it is similar to  Best 
> Buy, Dixons and Amazon stating that they are OK with Apple opening up 
> physical stores and an online store.  Not all registrars are happy with this 
> since there will be more competition and now you will be able to get a domain 
> from “the source”. Many customers will find this option more attractive and 
> switch their purchases to the VI entity. How many people who purchased their 
> items at resellers, now go to the Apple store because they trust buying it 
> there versus Best Buy?
>  
>  
> Jeff
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:15 PM
> To: 'Jon Nevett'
> Cc: 'Richard Tindal'; Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
>  
> Jon,
>  
> I think one of the objectives in the Board passing the rather draconian 
> Nairobi resolution was to seek those parties (registrars/registries) that 
> have been on opposite sides of the argument to find a neutral middle ground 
> with the non-contracting parties and ALAC serving as a moral compass on this 
> issue. What strikes me odd regarding most of the proposals to date from you 
> and the registrars is that they appear to be one sided, i.e. registries must 
> budge with little to no concession from the registrars.  If I am wrong please 
> tell me what major points you and the other registrars have conceded from 
> your previous positions.
>  
> I think if the non-contracting house is to support the registrar’s right to 
> have co-ownership or be vertically integrated with registries, that registrar 
> group that has been touting their commitment to consumer rights would agree 
> that expanding the PDDRP to include the entire registration authority 
> (registrar/registry) is responsible and prudent.  
>  
> With regard to the IRT discussion, remembers individual experts such as 
> myself were permitted to participate in the one whole day session at San 
> Francisco.  WIPO started off the day with a 90-120 minute presentation and if 
> I recall this was raised, and my recollection was there was a concern raised 
> by you. If I am mistaken and you never opposed the expansion of PDDRP to 
> registrars, then I apologize. However, if you did oppose the expanse of the 
> PDDRP I think this group would find an explanation of that opposition 
> insightful.
>  
> While the expanse of the RAA liability was a positive step in the right 
> direction in connection with group registrars, I think that same group 
> liability concept needs to be expanded to the whole registration authority 
> operation based on the same logic it was previously expanded.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Michael
>  
>  
>  
> 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] 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
>  
>  
>