Actually, the verification was supported ny SSAC wasn't it? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Laura Covington <lhc@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:31:57 To: <abrams@google.com>; <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Cc: <chris@andalucia.com>; <angie@webgroup.com>; <randruff@rnapartners.com>; <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>; <AHansen@council.bbb.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 and echoing thanks. As a newcomer to the group, please forgive me for stating the obvious, but -- I do want to flag that there are aspects of what we are asking for which we should anticipate, in the absence of automated means to accomplish, will be viewed as overly burdensome and onerous (and which may actually be, at the very least, challenging), such as the annual re-verification of contact information and confirming contact information by both email and phone.  To be clear, I absolutely support our request for these things; I just think we should also be thinking about compromises we can live with. I guess in the context of ICANN, one always has to be thinking about compromise? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc@yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Andy Abrams <abrams@google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:45 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be> > Cc: Chris Chaplow <chris@andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> >, Angie Graves <angie@webgroup.com <mailto:angie@webgroup.com> >, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, Bc GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >, "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org <mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 to Marie's statement.  Thanks to all for your work on this. Best, Andy On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be> > wrote: No comments from AIM, except to join in the thanks to all who have worked so hard to prepare this. Kind regards Marie   From:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 18:27 To: 'Angie Graves'; 'Ron Andruff' Cc: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Bc GNSO list'; 'Hansen, Anjali' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)   +1   Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris@andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> Web: www.andalucia.com <http://www.andalucia.com/> Information about Andalucia, Spain.   De:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Angie Graves Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013 18:16 Para: Ron Andruff CC: Steve DelBianco; Bc GNSO list; Hansen, Anjali Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)   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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen@council.bbb.org <mailto: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+call+MAY+02+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1368100389000%20>  and Transcript <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1368100411000>  )   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>  [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 <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendment-process-02apr13-en.pdf> )   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.      -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>