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 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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] > > > >