[RRA] RRA Amendment Notification for .hiphop [ ref:_00D616tJk._5004Mra3rc:ref ]

Tue May 17 18:54:43 UTC 2022

Thanks you Catherine for these comments.  I will follow up shortly with a response.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[cid:image001.png at 01D869FE.0AD54BB0]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com

From: Catherine Merdinger <catherine at donuts.email>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:57 PM
To: ICANN Global Support Center <globalsupport at icann.org>
Cc: secretariat at icannregistrars.org; rra at icann.org; aheineman at godaddy.com; maritza.alarcon at icann.org; camia.frank at icann.org; andee.hill at icann.org; amanda.fessenden at icann.org; jeanne.gregg at icann.org; morgan.govaars at icann.org; danielle.gordon at icann.org; Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
Subject: Re: RRA Amendment Notification for .hiphop [ ref:_00D616tJk._5004Mra3rc:ref ]

ICANN and Registry Operator,
Please find below the concerns and requests regarding the .HIPHOP RRA from the RrSG.

- Previously, under what is now Section 2.3, the registry guaranteed registrars “commercially reasonable notice” of any changes to the System.  As you have inserted that this notice will only be required for “material” changes, the RrSG is uncomfortable with the change.  We would specifically ask for either a specific notice period required for material changes, or removal of “material” and have notice required for all changes. As changes to the System could require engineering efforts by registrars, which can require significant time and planning, we would prefer to build in one of these buffers.
- The RrSG would like to confirm that the license granted to the data elements in Section 2.7, which specifically references “through both the WHOIS and RDAP protocols,” does not obligate the registrar to operate a Whois service for the TLD after the official sunset of Whois by ICANN.

We noted a few typographical errors, that we would simply ask the registry operator to correct in the final version:
- Section 1.15 is missing the word “agreement” between “means the” and “between”
- Section 1.17 defines “System” but the agreement uses the term “Registry System” – can you please confirm these are meant to be the same thing?
- We believe the term “Supported TLD” is a holdover from the previous version, as the term is not defined in this agreement, though “TLD” is defined.  Can you either update the references to “Supported TLD” or confirm if that definition is meant to be more expansive than the definition of “TLD”?
- Section 2.8.1 refers to Section 10, but there is no Section 10.
- Section 2.11 refers to Section 6.7, but there is no Section 6.7.
- Section 2.24 is missing a “days’” between “thirty (30)” and “notice.”
- Section 3.4 should say “in this Section do not extend.”
- Section 4.1 adds “either” but does not have an “or”- if there is another place the pricing will be posted or how it will be communicated to the registrars, can you please update to reflect that?
- Section 4.8 states “defined in Section 5.1 above” and “under this Section 5.2.”  We believe these references should be updated as the numbering on the document was updated from the original version.
- Sections 4.9 and 4.10 also refer to “this Section 5” – please update to refer to Section 4.
- Section 4.10 also references “pursuant to Section 6.2 below” – we believe this should be Section 5.2 below.
- Section 5.8 references “Section 6.7 above” – please update to the correct reference.
- Please double check the Section references in Section 5.10.
- Section 6.1 refers to Section 8.10, which does not exist.
- There seems to be an inconsistency between Section 7.4 and 2.24; we would ask that2.24 be updated to require notice through both email and the Console, as noted in Section 7.4.
- Section 7.6 has retained one reference to the Cayman Islands.  We think that is an error and should be updated to Florida, but please confirm.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of these points further, the RRA Review Team would be happy to schedule a time to talk through any questions or concerns you might have.

Best,
Catherine
Catherine Merdinger | Corporate Counsel | Donuts Inc. | +1.319.541.9416 | she/her

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:58 PM ICANN Global Support Center <globalsupport at icann.org<mailto: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 Dot Hip Hop, LLC to be shared with your Stakeholder Group:

  *   .hiphop
Please respond by 23:59 UTC on 17 May 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,

Maritza Alarcon
GDS Service Delivery
 [https://icann-nsp.my.salesforce.com/servlet/servlet.ImageServer?oid=00D610000006tJk&esid=0184M00000PgJGr&from=ext]

ref:_00D616tJk._5004Mra3rc:ref
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rra/attachments/20220517/382a1e8b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67520 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rra/attachments/20220517/382a1e8b/image001-0001.png>