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

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

No, this has to be answered in Phase 1.  It is essential for a level 
competitive playing field.

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.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:14 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA


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
>  
>  
>