Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Registrars Speak Out on IPC-BC Proposal to Re-Open RPM's for new tlds
Robin Gross
robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Sat Oct 27 18:14:55 CEST 2012
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Date: October 27, 2012 7:58:56 AM PDT
> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Registrars Speak Out on IPC-BC Proposal to Re-
> Open RPM's for new tlds
>
> Great statement from the Registrar Stakeholder Group on the
> inappropriateness of new RPM's trumpeted by IPC-BC.
>
> Robin
> _________________
>
> http://icannregistrars.org/calendar/announcements.php?
> utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign
>
> October 2012 - Post-Toronto Communication to ICANN CEO
>
> Dear Fadi:
>
> On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Registrar Stakeholder
> Group (RrSG), thank you for giving us your time during a busy week
> in Toronto. We very much appreciated you explaining your priorities
> as you begin your work as CEO.
>
> It was clear to the group that you are focused on achieving your
> initiatives and we are committed to working with you and ICANN
> staff in a collaborative manner. The members of the RrSG are a
> diverse group and many have been active in the ICANN community for
> over a decade. Your focus on implementation and ensuring successful
> rollout of new policy was a breath of fresh air for all.
>
> This letter will provide perspective on your two highest priority
> objectives - the conclusion of the Registrar Accreditation (RAA)
> negotiations and the rollout of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).
> We also address the last-minute requests of the Business and
> Intellectual Property Constituencies for additional rights
> protection mechanisms in new gTLDs.
>
> RAA
>
> For the past year, members of the RrSG and ICANN staff have been in
> negotiations over terms of a new RAA, with substantive progress
> made on all items. We have held numerous teleconferences, face to
> face meetings, and consultations with law enforcement, and feel the
> most recent draft document provided by the RrSG team provides for a
> much improved RAA for all parties and stakeholders.
>
> As an example of progress, the RrSG (after clarifying consultations
> with law enforcement) has accepted nearly all (11 ½ of 12) requests
> made by authorities, including the complicated issues of enhanced
> data retention and Whois contact validation. As you're aware, an
> unresolved issue is a process by which a registrar can fulfill its
> obligations when RAA terms conflict with national law.
>
> The negotiating team has worked hard to gain members' acceptance of
> these new requirements, amid strong internal disagreement, and a
> belief that material changes to the registration process must be
> subject to the defined policy development process. Accordingly, we
> believe both parties should accept the current RrSG draft as the
> best path forward and conclude negotiations with a set of terms
> that are reasonable and avoid negative or unintended consequences
> for registrars and their customers.
>
> On that point, it's important to express that inclusion of
> revocation language that allows ICANN to unilaterally "sunset" the
> full RAA is inappropriate for a commercial agreement, and there was
> broad-based opposition to the inclusion of this language both in
> Toronto and previously in Prague. We request its removal, in its
> entirety, prior to the groups re-engaging on substantive
> negotiations on the remaining outstanding issues.
>
> We are all eager to conclude the new RAA and are hopeful your
> direct involvement in the discussions will expedite a positive
> outcome.
>
> TMCH
>
> One of the critical elements of the new gTLD program is the
> successful launch of the TMCH, so it was encouraging to see you
> actively involved in moving this forward during our time in Toronto.
>
> RrSG members have been active in the development of the "Community"
> model currently being discussed, and we (majority of members)
> support the adoption of this model by ICANN and the TMCH provider.
> As registrars interact directly with consumers during domain
> registration, we have a vested interest in how the communication
> between the registries and the TMCH works. And because we have this
> relationship with our customers, registrars will provide end-user
> support for the TMCH system and program.
>
> Additional RPMs
>
> We also understand various parties are advocating for the inclusion
> of additional Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs), in excess of
> what is currently in the Guidebook. We are extremely concerned
> about this development at such a late stage in the program.
>
> The community spent years developing and building consensus for the
> current set of new RPMs for new gTLDs, and these will represent a
> significant increase to what currently exist in today's gTLDs. Any
> effort to revisit the discussion of RPMs - particularly outside
> policy development processes meant to provide predictability to
> contracted parties should be done after the gTLD program (with its
> agreed-upon RPMs) has been implemented and the effectiveness of the
> new RPMs can be evaluated.
>
> Additionally, we believe the additional RPMs circulated in Toronto
> represent a change to the policy and not the implementation of the
> TMCH. In our conversations with you, there was a clear distinction
> in your mind between the two and we would certainly agree with your
> assessment that policy and implementation be considered separately.
> The Policy Development Process exists to tackle community-wide
> issues by assembling a group of people from different stakeholder
> groups who can come together and work to resolve or lessen
> problems. Policy changes should not be pursued by a single interest
> group working directly with ICANN Staff. Doing so would in fact
> jeopardize, if not outright ignore, the significant implementation
> issues involved.
>
> Based on the RPMs in the Guidebook, registrars and registry
> operators have created product and business plans around those
> mechanisms, and to change those at this late date would have a
> significant impact on those plans. Moving forward with a change to
> the RPMs could further negatively impact reliance on the ICANN
> policy development process.
>
> Again, we want to commend you for the way in which you have entered
> the ICANN community and your eagerness to move the organization
> forward. We stand ready to collaborate with you in these efforts.
>
> Please do not hesitate to reach out to us at any time for our
> thoughts or perspectives.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt Serlin
> Chair, Registrar Stakeholder Group
>
> --------------
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121027/b0da5752/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list