Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support. Angie Graves On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>wrote:
** **
Thanks to the drafters for their hard work!****
** **
RNA Partners supports this final document.****
** **
Kind regards,****
** **
RA****
** **
Ronald N. Andruff****
RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>** ------------------------------
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM *To:* bc-gnso@icann.org *Cc:* Hansen, Anjali *Subject:* [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
** **
On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. ****
** **
Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2):****
** **
Section 5.3 -- “Right to Substitute Updated Agreement” -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised “form Registrar accreditation agreement” into which a registrar could “elect” to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. ****
****
Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. ****
** **
Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft.****
** **
--Steve****
** **
*From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> *Date: *Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM *To: *"bc-gnso@icann.org" <bc-gnso@icann.org> *Cc: *"Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org> *Subject: *FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)****
** **
ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> ) ****
** **
Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. ****
** **
We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+Members...> and Transcript<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf...> )****
** **
Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers.****
** **
Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 28-May-2013.****
** **
Steve DelBianco****
Vice chair for policy coordination****
Business Constituency****
** **
** ******
*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM *To:* 'bc - GNSO list' *Subject:* [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April ****Beijing**** session on new RAA********
** ******
ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement).********
** ******
The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendmen...> )********
** ******
The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA.**** ****
** ******
Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: ********
- EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, ********
- obligations for registrars using Resellers, ********
- greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination )********
** ******
Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since ****Toronto****. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues.********
** ******
I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA.********
** ******
RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board.********
** ******
I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions.*** *****
** ******
Public comment would be valuable in these areas: ********
Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars.*** *****
Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?)********
Penalties for inaccurate data********
Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries********
Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr********
** ******
Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments. ********
** ******