Steve, Elisa and Anjali, Thanks for this work. SVGC supports this redraft. Best, Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone4 Le 29 mai 2013 à 04:26, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> a écrit :
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)
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 and Transcript )
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] 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)
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.
<BC Comment on final RAA draft 5-28-2013.docx>