All, I think we need to have a call on this. There is too much in the way of legal language in this draft and frankly not enough of a true understanding of the business ramifications of these requirements. To illustrate: Why is it being dictated in a requirements document that a Registry Operator may only appoint a designee (called a BERO - which abbreviation should change as it is confusing to the EBERO term) by "written agreement." It is unacceptable to include in a requirements document language such as "For the avoidance of doubt, the appointment of a BERO shall not relieve Registry Operator of its obligations under the Agreed Obligations and Registry Operator shall remain liable to perform the Agreed Obligations should the BERO fail to discharge the Agreed Obligations in whole or part in accordance with The Registry Operator's Registry Agreement." We need to keep the lawyers and legal language out of the requirements doc..... Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:23 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: [gtld-tech] Second version of the URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars Colleagues, Attached you will find the second version of the "URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars" and a redline version of the document. This second version incorporates the feedback obtained from the conference call on August 07. We appreciate your feedback. Please send your feedback to the list or in private. Based on the feedback in this list, a new conference call may be required or this version may be published as the final version. Registry Operators will know the name servers deployed by the URS providers soon, in order to allow Registry Operators to create host objects (if necessary). Thank you, Gustavo