[registrars] .COOP agreement
CORE Secretariat
secretariat at corenic.org
Tue May 15 08:07:21 UTC 2007
Hi Tim and Jonathon,
There is no cause for concern here, on the contrary. The phrase simply
states that the sponsor may *seek* exemption form ICANN. At that point,
ICANN will proceed as it does now, i.e. publish the request, accept
public comment etc. ICANN can deny the request for exemption, thus
impose a given consensus policy.
The good thing is therefore that, at least, ICANN must have a good
reason to overrule the objections of the TLD sponsor, and it must make
its determination objectively specifically in view of the respective TLD.
I conclude that this phrase actually does deserve to be in all sponsored
TLD agreements.
Regards,
Werner
Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > I am concerned about this precedent for the future.
>
> No doubt within weeks or even days of this agreement being approved the
> other sponsored gTLD operators will be requesting the same change. And
> then the unsponsored operators will follow, claiming unfair competition.
>
> Wonder if registrars will be able to ask for a similar provision for
> policies that don't fit their varied business models?
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [registrars] .COOP agreement
> From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett at networksolutions.com>
> Date: Mon, May 14, 2007 5:11 pm
> To: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars at gnso.icann.org>
>
> I may be missing something, but it appears to me that the proposed
> .coop registry agreement includes a new provision – not appearing in
> other ICANN sTLD registry agreements (including the recent
> agreements covering .asia, .jobs, .mobi, .tel and .travel) – that
> would permit .coop to seek an exemption from complying with certain
> Consensus Policies with ICANN approval. The proposed contract is
> silent as to who at ICANN would decide on such exemptions and by
> what criteria. I’m not sure why .coop should have a special
> exemption with regard to complying with Consensus Policies that more
> recent sTLDs don’t enjoy. I am concerned about this precedent for
> the future. Are others as well?
>
>
> Here is the text of the new provision
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/coop/draft-proposed-agreement-19apr07.pdf):
>
> “In the event that the Sponsor has a reasonable basis to believe
> that the established Consensus Policy is not relevant, or may
> represent an unreasonable burden to the Sponsored Community, Sponsor
> shall have the right to seek an exemption from ICANN. If ICANN
> declines the exemption, the Sponsor and ICANN shall utilize the
> process for resolution of disputes set forth in Article 5/.//”
> / Section 3.1(b)(vii)
>
> I also should note that ICANN’s announcement regarding the proposed
> .coop registry agreement
> (http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20apr07.htm) states
> that:
>
> “The proposed .COOP agreement substantially follows the format of
> other recent sTLD registry agreements negotiated by ICANN. The
> agreement is for a ten-year term, and provides for the same set of
> requirements for these key terms:
>
> * compliance with consensus and temporary policies except to the
> extent policy development has been delegated to the sponsoring
> organization”
>
> Again, unless I am missing something, this appears to me to be
> inaccurate.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
--
---
CORE Internet Council of Registrars http://corenic.org
WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel +4122 929-5744 Fax +4122 929-5745 secretariat at corenic.org
More information about the registrars
mailing list