<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>
<div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement).</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (<a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendment-process-02apr13-en.pdf">link</a>)</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
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.</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">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: </font></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">- EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, </font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">- obligations for registrars using Resellers, </font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">- greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination )</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">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.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">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.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">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.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">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.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">Public comment would be valuable in these areas: </font></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?)</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">Penalties for inaccurate data</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri,sans-serif">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. </font></div>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; ">
<div>-- </div>
<div>Steve DelBianco</div>
<div>Executive Director</div>
<div>NetChoice</div>
<div>http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org </div>
<div>+1.202.420.7482 </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>