[registrars] Registrar accreditation agreement renewal and update

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Dan and Tim,

Current facts:
- some registrar's accreditation agreements are up for renewal
- these registrars have been offered only a 3 month extension
- new registrars are still getting agreements with 5 year terms
- both ICANN and registrars are considering improvements to the RAA
agreement
- the RAA must be consistent with the ICANN policy on registrar
accreditation
(http://www.icann.org/registrars/policy_statement.html dated 4 March
1999)

My recommendation is:
- allow those registrars with renewals to sign the current agreement for
5 years, which is consistent with new registrars signing the same
agreement
- registrars and ICANN cooperate to improve the RAA  (call this new
agreement RAAv2)
- the new agreement would need to be consistent with the current ICANN
policy
- the RAAv2 would be put to a vote of the registrars constituency
- the RAAv2 could incorporate additional provisions on compliance and
enforcement
- if the RAAv2 is approved by the constituency and also approved by
ICANN it will be available for registrars to sign, but registrars can
still sign RAAv1   
(so all registrars will have a choice and will not be worse off)
- the new RAAv2 will be sent to the GNSO for approval as a new consensus
policy (e.g if it has compliance aspects)
- once approved as consensus policy - all registrars must comply, and
registrars will no longer be able to sign RAAv1.   Those that have not
yet signed RAAv2 would be bound by this agreement under the consensus
policy provisions of RAAv1.

Please let me know if my recommended course of action is possible.
I would like to ensure that registrars are no worse off under a new
agreement, but that a new agreement could be developed prior to
completing a consensus policy process.

An example where this has occurred is that the draft .net agreement is
different to other gtld agreements, and incorporates a process for
approving new registry services.  This process is in advance of the
conclusion of the GNSO policy development process with respect to
approving new registry services.   When the GNSO policy development
process is complete it will replace the process specified in the current
.net agreement (as ICANN consensus policy takes precedence over the
other contractual provisions).

I would like to see ICANN treat registrars in the same way it treats
registries.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin