Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Registrars Speak Out on IPC-BC Proposal to Re-Open RPM's for new tlds

Sat Oct 27 18:28:37 CEST 2012

Thanks Robin,

I read  'Registrars Come Out Against Additional Rights Protections Policy
Changes For New gTLD’s'
http://www.thedomains.com/2012/10/26/registrars-come-out-against-additional-rights-protections-policy-changes-for-new-gtlds-or-trademark-clearing-house/

regards,

Alex

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> 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/ab4c25f3/attachment-0001.html>