[council] Proposed 2013 RAA Posted for Comment
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-Systems.net
Mon Mar 11 18:04:16 UTC 2013
Hi Jonathan,
as the only GNSO councillor also part of the registrar negotiation team
with ICANN, I'd be happy to pitch in with the discussion and shed some
light regarding some of the talks and the more remaining open issues. It
was rather frustrating with ICANN first pausing the talks for nearly 3
months and then coming back in February with more new additions and a
new deadline.
Best,
Volker
> Volker,
>
> You will have seen Jeff's suggestion to discuss this at the Council
> meeting on Thurs.
>
> I expect that we will hear from you on the topic. I have asked Jeff
> to lead but please free to discuss with Jeff and even to consider
> leading the topic yourself.
>
> Especially important (from a Council perspective) is your view on the
> impact on ICANN policy making processes / the multi-stakeholder model.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
> *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann
> *Sent:* 08 March 2013 14:10
> *Cc:* council at gnso.icann.org List
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Proposed 2013 RAA Posted for Comment
>
> To complete the set of documents, I am fowarding the statement of the
> RrSG Negotiation Team on the current state of the negotiations.
> Please note that the proposal currently envisioned by ICANN will
> effectively move the policy development process from the GNSO to the
> board.
> Most of the still contentious areas of the agreement are additions
> ICANN staff made this February after having let the negotiations
> languish in pause-mode for three months after the Toronto meeting and
> contain items that were never discussed with the registrar negotiation
> team since first proposed, due to other "matters of higher urgency".
> This agreement is a portent of things to come and of a move away from
> the multi-stakeholder model to a top-down structure.
>
>
> Registrar Stakeholder Group Negotiating Team (Registrar NT)
> statement regarding RAA negotiations
>
> After nearly 18 months of negotiations with ICANN over a new Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement (RAA), formal negotiations have concluded. The posting
> of a "proposed" 2013 RAA by ICANN for public comment signals that ICANN staff
> believes that negotiations have concluded and the remaining issues will not be
> resolved.
>
> The Registrars' NT disagrees. To be clear, this is NOT the outcome that
> registrars wanted, and they remain ready and willing to continue negotiations.
>
> Prior to the Toronto ICANN meeting (October 2012), all parties acknowledged
> that they were very close to agreement on all remaining issues. The process
> appeared to be reaching a favorable conclusion and when ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé
> communicated his desire to have RAA negotiations wrapped up by the end of 2012,
> registrars felt it was an ambitious timeframe, but one worth pursuing for the
> benefit of all parties.
>
> When negotiations finally resumed in February 2013 much to the surprise of
> registrars, the few remaining issues were not the only items under discussion.
> ICANN staff presented a list of 10 brand new items for inclusion in the
> agreement, under the pretext of enhancing the "public interest." Furthermore,
> these new items came along with an arbitrary deadline and decision to link the
> 2013 RAA to the new gTLD timeline.
>
> Among these new demands was a Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document
> (R3), a temporary privacy accreditation program and a requirement that
> registrars accept and implement recommendations of the WHOIS Expert Working
> Group, which had yet to be formed and whose work is just beginning.
>
> Although registrars were surprised by these new demands, registrars worked in
> good faith with ICANN to accommodate its intentions. For example, registrars
> consulted with their members to fine-tune the R3 document to make it easier to
> understand and readily translatable in other languages.
>
> Some of the other new items for inclusion transcend the RAA and could affect
> the entirety of the multi-stakeholder model. For example, ICANN insisted on
> including a proposed Revocation (or "blow up") Clause that would have given
> them the ability to unilaterally terminate all registrar accreditations. After
> major pushback, ICANN staff relented and in its place proposed giving the ICANN
> Board the ability to unilaterally amend the RAA. This is identical to what
> ICANN inserted into the proposed new gTLD registry agreement--a clause met with
> strong opposition not only from the Registry Stakeholder Group but from the
> broader ICANN community.
>
> The effect of such a clause in the primary agreements between ICANN and its
> commercial stakeholders would be devastating to the bottom-up,
> multi-stakeholder model. First, it will effectively mean the end of the GNSO's
> PDP, as the Board will become the central arena for all controversial issues,
> not the community. Second, it creates an imbalance of authority in the ICANN
> model, with no limits on the scope or frequency of unilateral amendments, and
> no protections for registrars and more important registrants.
>
> In addition to the new items for inclusion there was a surprise announcement
> that all new gTLD registries must only use registrars that have signed the 2013
> RAA, a transparent effort by ICANN to arbitrarily link the new gTLD program to
> the outcome of RAA negotiations. This requirement would create separate
> "classes" or "levels" of registrars, which is unprecedented in the DNS
> industry. There can and must be only one meaning of "ICANN-Accredited."
>
> All of the items that have been agreed to over the past 18 months would, by
> themselves, produce an RAA that is vastly improved over the current 2009
> version. If adopted, that RAA would significantly raise performance
> requirements for every ICANN accredited registrar and bring dramatic
> improvements to the domain name ecosystem. Nearly all of the Law Enforcement
> requests that were endorsed by the GAC have been included, as well as the major
> items that were requested by the GNSO are included in that RAA. That RAA would
> bring registrant verification. That RAA would bring enhanced compliance tools.
>
> Registrars must emphasize that the key differences between that RAA and the one
> currently proposed by ICANN are not issues raised by Law Enforcement, GAC or
> the GNSO but by ICANN staff.
>
> It now moves to the greater ICANN community to review these competing draft
> RAAs, and registrars look forward to those public discussions. We welcome
> engagement with all stakeholders on the new 2013 RAA, and what it means for
> registrars, registrants, and the management of the DNS as a whole.
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm
> Proposed 2013 RAA Posted for Comment
>
> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
>
> Comment Open Date:
>
> 7 March 2013
>
> Comment Close Date:
>
> 28 March 2013 - 23:59 UTC
>
> Reply Open Date:
>
> 29 March 2013
>
> Reply Close Date:
>
> 19 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC
>
> Important Information Links
>
> Public Comment Announcement
> <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-07mar13-en.htm>
>
> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
> <mailto:comments-proposed-raa-07mar13 at icann.org>
>
> View Comments Submitted
> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/>
>
> Brief Overview
>
> Originating Organization:
>
> ICANN
>
> Categories/Tags:
>
> * Contracted Party Agreements
>
> Purpose (Brief):
>
> ICANN is seeking public comments on a Proposed 2013 Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement (RAA), particularly on areas where ICANN
> and the Registrar Negotiating Team have not been able to reach
> agreement in principle. This represents the first time in the
> nearly 18 months of negotiations that community comment is
> formally sought on this document.
>
> Current Status:
>
> ICANN and the Registrar Negotiating Team commenced negotiation on
> amendments to the RAA in October 2011. While the documents posted
> today show many areas of agreement, there are differences between
> the ICANN and Registrar positions are highlighted. In addition,
> further discussion is still ongoing regarding some of the
> specifications to the agreement.
>
> Next Steps:
>
> After review of the comment received, the proposed 2013 RAA will
> be reviewed to determine if further changes are warranted. In
> addition, ICANN and the Registrar NT are likely to continue
> discussions regarding the areas where the specifications remain
> open. The ultimate goal is to have a 2013 RAA completed and
> approved in the near future.
>
> Staff Contact:
>
> Samantha Eisner, Senior Counsel
>
> Email Staff Contact
> <mailto:samantha.eisner at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%202013%20RAA%20Posted%20for%20Comment%20public%20comment%20period>
>
> Detailed Information
>
> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:
>
> After nearly 18 months of negotiations, ICANN is posting a new
> version of the proposed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement
> (RAA) for public comment.
>
> The Registrar Negotiating Team (NT) has continued to engage in
> good faith negotiations to understand ICANN's perspective with
> respect to the outstanding issues, and to share the often
> divergent positions within the Registrar Stakeholder Group.
> Recently, additional revisions were proposed by ICANN's
> Negotiating Team stemming from the call by ICANN's CEO, Fadi
> Chehadé, to work to improve the image of the domain industry and
> to protect registrants through a further updated contractual
> framework. The Registrar NT considered each of these new issues,
> and worked towards finding solutions where appropriate. The RAA
> posted today reflects hard-fought concessions on many of key
> issues raised throughout the negotiations, and highlights issues
> remaining in order for the final 2013 RAA agreement to be reached.
>
> Throughout the RAA and its Specifications, there are portions
> where two versions of draft text appear side by side. These
> highlight areas where ICANN and the Registrars have not been able
> to reach agreement in principle on an issue, therefore both
> positions are provided for comment. Unless otherwise noted, the
> remainder of the document reflects agreements in principle among
> ICANN and the Registrar NT.
>
> A fuller discussion of the status of negotiations and areas of
> difference is available in ICANN's RAA Posting Memorandum
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/memo-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 66 KB].
>
> Section II: Background:
>
> The current round of negotiations over the RAA began in October
> 2011. ICANN and the Registrar Negotiation Team have presented
> updates to the community at each of ICANN's public meetings since
> that time. Information on the history of the negotiations,
> including previously released documentation, is available at the
> community wiki at
> https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement. This
> includes the group of documents posted in June 2012, which
> demonstrated the progress to date in the negotiations.
>
> Section III: Document and Resource Links:
>
> There are multiple documents for review as part of this posting.
> The new RAA is anticipated to be a base document with a series of
> specifications attached. This posting includes all documents that
> are currently anticipated to be part of the 2013 a. As noted
> above, a fuller discussion of the status of negotiations and areas
> of difference is available in ICANN's RAA Posting Memorandum
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/memo-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 66 KB].
>
> The base RAA documents:
>
> * Proposed 2013 RAA, Annotated to Show Differences Between ICANN
> and Registrar Positions
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 281 KB]
> * Redline showing changes between Proposed 2013 RAA and the June
> 2012 RAA Posting
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-03jun12-redline-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 205 KB]
> * Redline showing changes between Proposed 2013 RAA and the 2009
> RAA
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-2009-redline-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 259 KB]
> * A Summary of Changes from the June 2012 RAA Posting
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-summary-changes-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 268 KB] is also available.
>
> The Specifications and Addendums:
>
> For the Consensus and Temporary Policy Specification, the Data
> Retention Specification, and the Whois Accuracy Program
> Specification, each is available in annotated format to show where
> differences remain with the registrars, as well as redlines
> showing the differences in the documents from the 2012 posting.
>
> * Proposed Consensus and Temporary Policy Specification,
> Annotated to Show Differences Between ICANN and Registrar
> Positions
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-temporary-policy-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 121 KB]
> * Redline showing changes between to the Consensus and Temporary
> Policy Specification and the June 2012 Version
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-temporary-policy-redline-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 95 KB]
> * Proposed Data Retention Specification, Annotated to Show
> Differences Between ICANN and Registrar Positions
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 113 KB]
> * Redline showing changes between to the Data Retention
> Specification and the June 2012 Version
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-redline-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 118 KB]
> * Proposed Whois Accuracy Program Specification, Annotated to
> Show Differences Between ICANN and Registrar Positions
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 116 KB]
> * Redline showing changes between to the Whois Accuracy Program
> Specification and the June 2012 Version
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-redline-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 142 KB]
>
> For the remaining specifications to the RAA, the versions below
> are provided as ICANN's latest proposal. The Registrar Negotiation
> Team is still considering each of these specifications:
>
> * Proposed Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Specification
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights-responsibilities-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 48 KB]
> * ICANN Proposed Specification on Proxy/Privacy Services
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-privacy-proxy-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 70 KB]
> * ICANN Proposed Additional Registrar Operation Specification
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-additional-operation-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 78 KB]
> * ICANN Proposed Registrar Information Specification
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrar-information-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 76 KB]
> * ICANN Proposed Whois Specification
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 160 KB]
> * ICANN Proposed Compliance Certificate
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-compliance-certificate-07mar13-en.pdf>
> [PDF, 64 KB]
> * ICANN Proposed Transition Addendum
> <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-transition-addendum-07mar13-en.pdf>[PDF,
> 63 KB]
>
> Section IV: Additional Information:
>
> None
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not
> guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis,
> reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period
> lapses.
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130311/9e62fb4c/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list