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

Grant Carpenter grant at team.xyz
Thu Jun 2 18:03:20 UTC 2022


Gentle follow-up on this.

*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, May 26, 2022 at 4:23 PM Camia Frank <camia.frank at icann.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the confirmation from the RrSG of no further comments or
> concerns. As per the comprehensive review, we are still completing our
> internal review and will be providing notice of its completion shortly.
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> Warm Regards,
>
>
>
> Camia Frank
>
> GDS Service Delivery
>
>
>
> *From: *Grant Carpenter <grant at team.xyz>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:00 PM
> *To: *"rra at icann.org" <rra at icann.org>
> *Cc: *ICANN Global Support Center <globalsupport at icann.org>, Andee Hill <
> andee.hill at icann.org>, Amanda Fessenden <amanda.fessenden at icann.org>,
> Danielle Gordon <danielle.gordon at icann.org>, Jeanne Gregg <
> jeanne.gregg at icann.org>, Morgan Govaars <morgan.govaars at icann.org>, Camia
> Frank <camia.frank at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: RRA Amendment Notification for Multiple (10) TLDs [
> ref:_00D616tJk._5004Mr4Eps:ref ]
>
>
>
> Please advise whether anything else is needed for this amendment to be
> approved by ICANN.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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 Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:57 AM Grant Carpenter <grant at team.xyz> wrote:
>
> Great. Thanks all!
>
>
>
> *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 Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:40 AM Catherine Merdinger
> <catherine at donuts.email> wrote:
>
> Grant,
>
>
>
> Thank you so much for working with us on this.  My apologies for my
> delayed response - I was traveling last week and ended up with covid.
>
>
>
> ICANN, I can confirm that the registrars are comfortable with this updated
> form of RRA.  Please let us know if there is anything further you require
> from us.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Catherine
>
> *Catherine Merdinger **| *Corporate Counsel *| *Donuts Inc. *|*
> +1.319.541.9416 *| *she/her
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:52 AM Grant Carpenter <grant at team.xyz> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Updated versions attached -- one clean and one with tracked changes from
> the previous version. I combined it all into a single file this time.
>
>
>
> Notes below on the relevant items from Catherine's 4/28 email:
>
> ·         *1 (Confidentiality language)*: Added.
>
> ·         *4 (Repeated language in 6.3 and 6.5)*: Fixed
>
> ·         *4 (Repeated language contradicting 8.3)*: I don't agree that
> the language from 6.5 (now removed from 6.3) contradicts 8.3. 6.5 deals
> with RO's right to amend on 90 days' notice. The relevant portion of 8.3
> states that if RO posts an amended version of the agreement on the
> CentralNic Console, Registrar may simply accept the new agreement in place
> of the old agreement -- rather than amending the existing agreement. In
> other words, 6.5 covers the assignment process and the relevant portion of
> 8.3 provides a related (but seperate) option to replace the existing
> agreement with the amended version of the agreement. They're entirely
> consistent -- although not very clearly drafted.
>
> ·         *5 (Various typos and other issues)*: All fixed / resolved.
>
> Let me know if you need anything else and thanks for your work on this.
>
>
>
> 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 1:25 PM Grant Carpenter <grant at team.xyz> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
>
>
> 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 [xyz.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/XYZ.COM__;!!PtGJab4!9cRmHOrspXs6ztwdANSCREUXKbYqEOVfwBnsnt7tLuhw7u9ExY2abdaIkRMrStCsmxK09XcMnSjGS36YQocLyiU$>,
> 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[image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> ref:_00D616tJk._5004Mr4Eps:ref
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rra/attachments/20220602/9dcc465b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RRA mailing list