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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also support your position, Jeff. 

RA 

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:39:10 
To: Neuman, Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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 iPhone

On 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 & 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: 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.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- 
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:03 PM
> To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
>
>
>
> 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 existi 
> ng 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 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,
>
>
>
> 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 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 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 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.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>