[bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA

[Steve DelBianco]

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.


--
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130408/13ca039d/attachment.html>