[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [Tdg-legal] Proposed Changes to the RRDRP
FYI.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Tdg-legal] Proposed Changes to the RRDRP
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:47:57 -0500
From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tdg-legal@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
<<RRDRP - 11 2010 Redline edits 24 Feb 11.docx>>
Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Spencer, Stacey Johnson, Ray Fassett and I
from the RySGprepared the attached version of the RRDRP in the current
version of the Applicant Guidebook(AG). All of our proposed changes
arehighlighted and some comments are also included where we thought
helpful to explain our rationale. Because itappears that the new gTLD
process may be finalized fairly shortly, we thought it would be
helpfulto prepare a redline version showing our proposed edits so that
this group could discuss the changes on the list. We have
requestedanother meeting of theTDG-Legal groupbut it will not be
possible to have that before the ICANN SF meetings because ICANN staff
members involved in the TDG-Legal groupare extremely busy preparing
for those meetings.
Note that these proposed changes have not yet been endorsed by the
RySG. Because of the time sensitiveness ofany additional changes to
the AG, we decided it would be better to send the proposed changes to
theRySG at the same time we send them to the TDG.Followingis a general
explanation of why we thinkchanges are needed to the RRDRP.
The RRDRP merits more attention than it has received to
date. Like the PDDRP, the risk under the RRDRP is
extraordinary as any decision by a Provider may result in
a) “suspension of accepting new domain name registration
in the gTLD”, or b) “termination of a registry agreement.”
Given the severe impact of these remedies on the Registry
and its effect on potentially hundreds or thousands of
registrants, this proceeding must be fair and the
protections for the accused robust.
Further, the RRDRP is aimed at a group of registries who
do not yet exist, Community TLDs. Envisioned to reach out
to cultural groups, emerging economies and language groups
not currently well-represented on the web, the ICANN
community has already determined that these groups
need/////more protection/in the New gTLD proceedings (for
example, in the work of the Joint Applicant Supporting
Working Group). By extension, counsel and legal assistance
for these small Registries is likely to be scarce and
difficult.
Accordingly, the level of risk for these Registries should
be lower or on par with those of existing or other New
gTLDs. As written, the risk for Community TLDs is greater.
Since we trust this additional exposure of smaller
community registries is not what ICANN intended, we submit
the attached edits of the RRDRP to place it on par with
the PDDRP in terms of basic protections.
Chuck Gomes, Vice President, Policy & Compliance
Verisign Naming
Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)
3108 Ponte Morino Drive, Suite 110/117, Cameron Park , CA 95682
Office: +1 530 676-1100; Mobile: +1 703 362-8753
“This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission.”
Attachment:
RRDRP - 11 2010 Redline edits 24 Feb 11.docx _______________________________________________ TDG-legal mailing list TDG-legal@xxxxxxxxx https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tdg-legal |