Evan, Just because Donuts requested something be removed from the RA, doesn't mean it was. It is widely acknowledged amongst gTLD applicants that the RA is "take it or leave it", with the caveat that you can try to redline bits of it, but that will mean significant delays. Like a year or more. I doubt that Donuts would want to face that. If you have actual contracts that show that the PICs have been eliminated, I would like to see that, and I am sure many new gTLD applicants who have not yet signed their RAs would like to see it as well. If Donuts got this in their contracts, there would be hell to pay with the GAC. I can guarantee that ICANN lawyers understand the implication of caving on this point. As someone who went through the contract negotiation process, I seriously doubt this would happen. rgds, McTim On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 2 September 2014 13:45, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
The PIC provisions in at least some TLD applications explicitly entitle
the registry to rescind any or all PIC provisions without notice or cause.
Steve Crocker was pretty emphatic in Singapore when addressing ALAC that this is just not the case.
I know. I was there, and it was I who raised the issue. Steve's answer was ill-informed.
Do you have examples?
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47254471/1-1489-82287_Donut...
Last paragraph in the document.
- Evan
-- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel