Score 4 points for the BC
ICANN posted a revised new gTLD Registry agreement (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>) and comment periods yesterday. Buried in there are 4 points the BC has pressed for the past year: Our first point: there's a new Public Interest Commitments page (Specification 11) in the new Ry agreement. It requires use of only registrars using the latest RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement). This was #6 on our Toronto list (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Consensus%20Improvements%20to%2...>) and #4 in our Jan-2012 letter (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implementa...>). Second point: Specification 11 also says that all commitments and statements of intent from the new gTLD application are incorporated by reference in the Ry agreement. And they will be enforceable by ICANN. This was #7 on our Toronto list (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Consensus%20Improvements%20to%2...>) and #1 in our Jan-2012 letter (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implementa...>). Score another point for our quest to let dot-brand TLDs skip having to use all registrars. We first pressed for this in 2010 (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20Final%20App%20Guidebo...>) There was already an exemption request available, but now it's in the base agreement: 2.9(a) All domain name registrations in the TLD must be registered through an ICANN accredited registrar; provided, that Registry Operator need not use a registrar if it registers names in its own name in order to withhold such names from delegation or use in accordance with Section 2.6. Finally, we'll take a point for stimulating a public comment period on closed generic gTLDs. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm>) The BC doesn't have a position for/against closed generics, but we have been pressing ICANN to clarify how a registry can qualify for a Code of Conduct exception to allow ownership of all domain names and bypass use of all registrars. More to come as we craft our BC comments on these changes. Meanwhile, congratulations on 4 hard-won points for the BC team. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Thanks for the quick analysis of the proposed changes to the Registry agreement, Steve. Indeed, the new inclusions you note are significant and welcome; something that business can take satisfaction in seeing come to bear. Well done to all who contributed to these efforts! Nice to see some well-earned wins. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:43 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Score 4 points for the BC ICANN posted a revised new gTLD Registry agreement (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm> ) and comment periods yesterday. Buried in there are 4 points the BC has pressed for the past year: Our first point: there's a new Public Interest Commitments page (Specification 11) in the new Ry agreement. It requires use of only registrars using the latest RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement). This was #6 on our Toronto list (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Consensus%20Improvements%20to% 20RPMs%20for%20new%20gTLDs.pdf> ) and #4 in our Jan-2012 letter (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implement ation%20improvements.pdf> ). Second point: Specification 11 also says that all commitments and statements of intent from the new gTLD application are incorporated by reference in the Ry agreement. And they will be enforceable by ICANN. This was #7 on our Toronto list (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Consensus%20Improvements%20to% 20RPMs%20for%20new%20gTLDs.pdf> ) and #1 in our Jan-2012 letter (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implement ation%20improvements.pdf> ). Score another point for our quest to let dot-brand TLDs skip having to use all registrars. We first pressed for this in 2010 (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20Final%20App%20Guideb ook.pdf> ) There was already an exemption request available, but now it's in the base agreement: 2.9(a) All domain name registrations in the TLD must be registered through an ICANN accredited registrar; provided, that Registry Operator need not use a registrar if it registers names in its own name in order to withhold such names from delegation or use in accordance with Section 2.6. Finally, we'll take a point for stimulating a public comment period on closed generic gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm> ) The BC doesn't have a position for/against closed generics, but we have been pressing ICANN to clarify how a registry can qualify for a Code of Conduct exception to allow ownership of all domain names and bypass use of all registrars. More to come as we craft our BC comments on these changes. Meanwhile, congratulations on 4 hard-won points for the BC team. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Great news! It's satisfying to see these wins. Kudos to those whose efforts got us there! Best regards, Angie Angie Graves WEB Group, Inc. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>wrote:
ICANN posted a revised new gTLD Registry agreement (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>) and comment periods yesterday.
Buried in there are 4 points the BC has pressed for the past year:
Our first point: there's a new Public Interest Commitments page (Specification 11) in the new Ry agreement. It requires use of *only*registrars using the latest RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement). This was #6 on our Toronto list (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Consensus%20Improvements%20to%2...>) and #4 in our Jan-2012 letter (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implementa...> ).
Second point: Specification 11 also says that all commitments and statements of intent from the new gTLD application are incorporated by reference in the Ry agreement. And they will be *enforceable* by ICANN. This was #7 on our Toronto list (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Consensus%20Improvements%20to%2...>) and #1 in our Jan-2012 letter (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implementa...> ).
Score another point for our quest to let dot-brand TLDs *skip* having to use all registrars. We first pressed for this in 2010 (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20Final%20App%20Guidebo...>) There was already an exemption request available, but now it's in the base agreement:
2.9(a) All domain name registrations in the TLD must be registered through an ICANN accredited registrar; provided, that Registry Operator need not use a registrar if it registers names in its own name in order to withhold such names from delegation or use in accordance with Section 2.6.
Finally, we'll take a point for stimulating a public comment period on closed generic gTLDs. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm>) The BC doesn't have a position for/against closed generics, but we have been pressing ICANN to clarify how a registry can qualify for a Code of Conduct exception to allow ownership of all domain names and bypass use of all registrars.
More to come as we craft our BC comments on these changes.
Meanwhile, congratulations on 4 hard-won points for the BC team.
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
participants (3)
-
Angie Graves -
Ron Andruff -
Steve DelBianco