[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Work Track 2: Single Base Agreement

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On Oct 2, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Zylstra, Raymond <Raymond.Zylstra at neustar.biz> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> I wanted to start the discussion on a question that was raised about the Base Agreement just prior to the end of the 22 September call – the question of ‘does a single base agreement make sense for all types of registries?’ and the need to have different agreements for different categories of TLDs. 
>  
> I do not believe that the concept of multiple Registry Agreements is warranted. This is an important topic and I believe the discussion should be broader than simply answering the question as posed. Provided below are some issues I believe we should consider in order to respond to the question. 
>  
> •                    Predictability – This is something that is often talked about, and also applies in this case. As an end user should I expect the same service levels and requirements of TLDs as I navigate the internet? I would argue yes. It seems that we could end up in a situation where 2012 Registry Operators have very different obligations.

That is already not the case, due to the existence of ccTLDs and gTLDs... 2012 Registry Operators would possibly move to the new portfolio of agreements. 

> •                    Level Playing Field – A level playing field is important for 2012 Applicants and Registry Operators and those future Applicants; introducing a different Registry Agreement for future Applicants may unfairly disadvantage those who have signed the 2012 Registry Agreement.

ICANN has moved most gTLDs with prior agreements to agreements that look a lot like 2012 RA, so that also doesn't hold. 

> •                    Status Quo – We currently have a Registry Agreement, albeit with additional Specifications, under which the various categories of TLDs can, and do, operate. While there are certainly situations where the Registry Agreement is not ideal, it is functional; there are things about it which we may not like, but they are not show stoppers.

Some situations would be show stoppers if ICANN actually exercised those, so that is still to be seen... 

> •                    Where Does the Problem Lie – As with many of you I have experienced many operational issues dealing with ICANN and their lack of understanding of the diverse business models for different TLDs. I don’t believe that having a different Registry Agreement will solve that issue, rather it is a case of working with ICANN to resolve those problems, and I for one have had some success with this.

Even if some success was achieved, that is still more stressful and costly that it should. 

> •                    Lengthy Process – Without question the development of, and agreement to, multiple Registry Agreements has the potential seriously compromise the timelines for the commencement of subsequent new gTLDs. Further, on the call brands were singled out; however, I am confident that many Registry Operators could argue some form of unique requirement which they believe required a unique Registry Agreement.

Actually I believe the call mentioned brand and exclusive use TLDs, both of which already have different specifications. Community TLDs also have a different specification, and there are also in the 2012 agreement a different version (not specification) for governmental entities. See https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/rio-2014-02-27-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/rio-2014-02-27-en> for one example that this is already in place in the 2012 agreement. 

> •                    Administrative Burden – The introduction of multiple Registry Agreements and dealing with these new agreements and the 2012 Registry Agreement will introduce massive overhead for ICANN, Registry Operators, Applicants, and service providers.

I agree with the overhead for ICANN, but not necessarily for ROs, applicants and SPs; if different agreements come with less requirements, that can be less overhead for those. 




Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20161002/0039d5b8/attachment-0001.html>