[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

[James M. Bladel]

Agree with Roelof, including registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries to future Registrar agreements or RAAs would be problematic.

Instead, we could consider a separate agreement between ICANN and the Registrant, similar to what some ccTLDs currently require.   This would also create an opportunity to clean up & consolidate some of the existing "pass thru" obligations in the current RAA.

Thanks-

J.

From: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>>
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 at 3:54
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Cc: "ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org>>, "accountability-staff at icann.org<mailto:accountability-staff at icann.org>" <accountability-staff at icann.org<mailto:accountability-staff at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

>Work Stream 1, proposed a contract between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with >Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when >supported by consensus of affected parties.

That, of course, would never work. One of the reasons why not: those affected parties are quite often commercial enterprises that probably would not collectively by consensus agree to serve the public interest instead of their individual commercial interests


Cheers,

Roelof Meijer

SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS
T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
roelof.meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/>

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
Date: maandag 29 december 2014 01:53
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Cc: "ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org>>, "accountability-staff at icann.org<mailto:accountability-staff at icann.org>" <accountability-staff at icann.org<mailto:accountability-staff at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

Work Stream 1, proposed a contract between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of affected parties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150106/7d13a2a3/attachment.html>