Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
I think these are all reasonable questions and look forward to discussing them I agree that the rules we recommend for new tlds should be fully applicable to old tlds RT Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 30, 2010, at 1:36 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Let me try to be clearer in my response:The .com, .net, .org, .biz, .info, .name, .mobi and other TLD agreements currently prohibit the registry operator from being a registrar in ANY TLD. Not just the TLD it is the registry operator for, but ALL TLDs (including new TLDs). Therefore, Neustar for example, is not only not allowed by contract to be a registrar for .BIZ, but is also NOT allowed to be a registrar for .com, .net, .org, .web, .nyc, .sport, .eco, .food, .green, etc…. .you get the point. However, there is no prohibition on a registrar running a registry. What this means is that Demand Media can be a registry for new TLDs and also a registrar for existing and new TLDs (subject to any VI limitations), but because Neustar would have leg acy terribly written language (that we were forced to accept), Neust ar would not be able to have the same rights as Demand Media.Now, there are several questions here and I am using Neustar as an example (but I am sure everyone is really only thinking about VeriSign). The first question is:1. Should Neustar be allowed to be a registrar for all TLDs other than ones in which it is the registry operator? - From what I gather, there is no opposition to this. That being the case, ICANN would have to amend the existing .BIZ agreement to allow for this to happen.2. Should Neustar be allowed to be a registrar for all TLDs in which it is a Registry Services Provider (although not the Registry Operator under contract) – This one is still a TBD and needs to be a ddressed by the group. In either case, however, no amendment to the existing .BIZ Agreement would need to happen.3. Should Neustar be allowed to be a registrar for any new TLD in which it is the Registry Operator, but where exceptions were made to allow VI (i.e., single registrant TLD? The answer here, according to us would have to be YES, if an exception is made to allow others to do this, then we should be allowed as well. In that case, ICANN would need to amend the .BIZ Agreement to allow for Neustar to be able to be on the level-competitive playing field.4. Should Neustar be allowed to be a registrar for .BIZ (or any TLD in which it is the Registry Operator) – This is the ultimate questio n and would need an amendment to the existing .BIZ Agreement as well.Bottom line is that it would be unacceptable to Neustar to allow new TLD registries to be able to do things that Neustar is restricted from doing. To do so would not only violate our existing agreements, but the ICANN bylaws as well. So when Jeff E. talks about 2-way streets, we need to make sure that the streets are really 2-ways and not 2-ways for registrars, 1-way for existing registries.Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & PolicyThe 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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:49 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA Jeff,I may be missing something here because I was not on the call Monday, but when a registrar community representative offers to approach this as a two-way street it’s not very productive to attemp t immediately to drive a 16-wheel tractor-trailer through it with th e horn blasting.We can find mutually acceptable ways to liberalize the situation for both sides of this equation, I am sure, but that won’t happen if rea sonable attitudes and concessions on one side are seized in this way.--MMFrom: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, JeffSent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:03 PM To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAAJeff, 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 existi ng agreements…..Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & PolicyThe 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 EckhausSent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:52 PM To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAAAs 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 sourc e”. Many customers will find this option more attractive and switch their purchases to the VI entity. How many people who purchased thei r items at resellers, now go to the Apple store because they trust b uying 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 r ight to have co-ownership or be vertically integrated with registrie s, that registrar group that has been touting their commitment to co nsumer rights would agree that expanding the PDDRP to include the en tire 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, MichaelFrom: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon NevettSent: 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, MichaelFrom: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard TindalSent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:19 PM To: Jeff Eckhaus Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAAI 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 thingsRt Sent from my iPhoneOn 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 ICAN N contractual regime. How about we ask ICANN’s general counsel to i nterpret 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 theRegistry TLD (other than the Second-Level Reservations for Registry Operations from Specification 5),such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar… ….Best regards, MichaelFrom: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff EckhausSent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:45 PM To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAAI 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 oppos ed 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 r egistrant terminating a registration agreement ?· The requirement to maintain insurance with a limit of at l east $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.htmThanks Jeff
|