[RRA] RRA Amendment Notification for Multiple (10) TLDs [ ref:_00D616tJk._5004Mr4Eps:ref ]

Thu Apr 28 18:49:17 UTC 2022

ICANN,

The RrSG has the following requests for clarification and potentially
changes to the proposed RRAs submitted by XYZ.  The RRA Review Team of the
RrSG would be happy to discuss any of these requests with the registry, if
that would be beneficial.

Thanks,
Catherine

1.     The RrSG requests that the registry add back language that was
deleted from Section 9.6(vi) which would require notification to the
Disclosing Party if the Receiving Party is required by law to disclose the
Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information.  The specific language that
was deleted is below:

a.     "provided, that in the event the Receiving Party is required by Iaw,
regulation or court order to disclose any of Disclosing Party's
Confidential information, Receiving Party will promptly notify Disclosing
Party in writing prior to making any such disclosure in order to facilitate
Disclosing Party seeking a protective order or other appropriate remedy
from the proper authority, at the Disclosing Party's expense. Receiving
Party agrees to cooperate with Disclosing Party in seeking such order or
other remedy. Receiving Party further agrees that if Disclosing Party is
not successful in precluding the requesting legal body from requiring the
disclosure of the Confidential Information, it will furnish only that
portion of the Confidential Information that is legally required."

2.     While the RrSG is aware that the text of Section 5(b) of the Data
Processing Addendum is from the Temporary Specification DPA model terms, we
do have concerns about the referenced SCCs no longer being applicable to
data transfers from the UK, which is no longer part of the European Union.
Will the registry be incorporating the UK SCCs for UK based registrars
party to the RRA to ensure the lawful transfer of data?

3.     The RrSG requests clarification regarding Section 5.9.6 and the data
elements listed there.  Is the registry operator stating that “Public
Access to Data on Registered Names” (subsection v) is a data element that
“Registrar shall submit to, or shall place in the Registry Database via the
Registry System”?  Similarly, subsection vi. and vii. do not appear to list
specific data elements for submission to the registry system.  Furthermore,
can you please confirm that the data elements listed in subsection vii. are
consistent with the Board-approved EPDP Phase 1 recommendations?

4.     The RrSG requests clarification regarding text that appears to be
erroneously repeated in Sections 6.3 and 6.5.  The screenshot below shows
the repeated texts highlighted.  The repeated language also seems to
contradict the language contained in Section 8.3.
[image: image.png]

5.     The RrSG noted the following typos that we would request be
corrected before the agreement is finalized:

a.     There are two section 4.4.1s

b.     We believe there is text missing at the beginning of 5.5.3 (the
section seems to pick up in the middle of a sentence)

c.     Section 5.13 is duplicative of Section 5.5

d.     Sections 8.1 and 8.3 contradict each other regarding the Term of the
RRA; please confirm which section is correct and remove redundant language.

e.     Section 19 contains an extraneous “a” (“This *a* Agreement may be
executed…”)

Finally, the RrSG is requesting that all registry operators going forward
refrain from submitting as their redlined version of the existing RRA
showing the proposed changes, a version that simply deletes the old RRA and
inserts the text of the new RRA.  This style of redline is not useful in
our review of the changes and may delay our response.   Instead, the RrSG
requests that registry operators run a comparison of the current RRA
against the proposed new RRA (or use some other method of tracking the
changes to each section).  Of course, if a registry operator has questions
about what style of redline is most helpful to the RrSG, the RRA Review
Team would be happy to consult as they prepare their documents.  In the
future, the RrSG will be unable to complete our review until the correct
redlines are submitted by the registry operator.
*Catherine Merdinger **| *Corporate Counsel *| *Donuts Inc. *|*
+1.319.541.9416 *| *she/her

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:43 AM Catherine Merdinger <catherine at donuts.email>
wrote:

> Thanks, ICANN.  Confirming receipt on behalf of the RrSG.
>
> Catherine
> *Catherine Merdinger **| *Corporate Counsel *| *Donuts Inc. *|*
> +1.319.541.9416 *| *she/her
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:31 AM ICANN Global Support Center <
> globalsupport at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello Ashley,
>>
>> Attached, please find the cover letter and the red-lined RRA Amendment
>> for the following TLD(s) submitted by *XYZ.COM <http://XYZ.COM>, LLC* to
>> be shared with your Stakeholder Group:
>>
>>    - *.audio*
>>    - *.christmas*
>>    - *.diet*
>>    - *.flowers*
>>    - *.game*
>>    - *.guitars*
>>    - *.hosting*
>>    - *.lol*
>>    - *.mom*
>>    - *.pics*
>>
>> Please respond by 23:59 UTC on *Thursday, 28 April 2022* to let us know
>> if your Stakeholder Group has concerns, does not have concerns, or if
>> additional review time is required. If the Stakeholder Group has concerns,
>> ICANN org will continue with the next step of the RRA Amendment Procedure,
>> which is to consult with the RrSG and the Registry Operator to attempt to
>> resolve any such concerns.
>>
>> Warm Regards,
>>
>> Camia Frank
>> GDS Service Delivery
>>
>> ref:_00D616tJk._5004Mr4Eps:ref
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rra/attachments/20220428/87f7aa60/attachment.html>