Begin forwarded message: > From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > Date: October 27, 2012 7:58:56 AM PDT > To: NCSG-Policy <[log in to unmask]> > 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: [log in to unmask] > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > [log in to unmask] > 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: [log in to unmask]