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

[Robin Gross]

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 ? 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121027/6e91d7bf/attachment.html>