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

Grant Carpenter grant at team.xyz
Thu Apr 28 20:25:19 UTC 2022


Hi all,

I used the exact RRA that was approved multiple times by the RrSG --
including fairly recently -- so I'm a little surprised by these items being
brought up now.  Given the amount of changes being requested, I'm going to
redraft and resubmit the RRA with the requested changes and a number of
other registry-friendly changes I've wanted for years.  I've been avoiding
making any changes to our RRA to make the RrSG's approval process a little
easier. Looks like now's the time to make the changes. More to follow.

Also, I agree that the formatting of the redlines makes no sense -- but
that is how ICANN requires us to submit it. Note that I included clean
versions for this reason.

Best,
Grant

*Grant Carpenter*
General Counsel, XYZ
2800 Olympic Blvd., #1, Santa Monica, CA 90404
2121 E Tropicana Ave., #2, Las Vegas, NV 89119
O: 1.702.757.6555 | M: 1.203.610.2683 | Grant at team.xyz
------------------------------
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any
distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message
and then delete it from your system. Thank you.


On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:49 AM Catherine Merdinger <catherine at donuts.email>
wrote:

> 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/20220428/02eb24fa/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RRA mailing list