[PC-NCSG] Registrars Speak Out on IPC-BC Proposal to Re-Open RPM's for new tlds
Robin Gross
robin
Sat Oct 27 17:58:56 EEST 2012
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>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list