Re: [registrars] .COOP agreement

[CORE Secretariat <secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tim and Jonathon,

There is no cause for concern here, on the contrary. The phrase simply 
states that the sponsor may *seek* exemption form ICANN. At that point, 
ICANN will proceed as it does now, i.e. publish the request, accept 
public comment etc.  ICANN can deny the request for exemption, thus 
impose a given consensus policy.
The good thing is therefore that, at least, ICANN must have a good 
reason to overrule the objections of the TLD sponsor, and it must make 
its determination objectively specifically in view of the respective TLD.
I conclude that this phrase actually does deserve to be in all sponsored 
TLD agreements.
Regards,

Werner




Tim Ruiz wrote:
>  > I am concerned about this precedent for the future.
>  
> No doubt within weeks or even days of this agreement being approved the 
> other sponsored gTLD operators will be requesting the same change. And 
> then the unsponsored operators will follow, claiming unfair competition.
>  
> Wonder if registrars will be able to ask for a similar provision for 
> policies that don't fit their varied business models?
> Tim
>
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: [registrars] .COOP agreement
>     From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Date: Mon, May 14, 2007 5:11 pm
>     To: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>     I may be missing something, but it appears to me that the proposed
>     .coop registry agreement includes a new provision – not appearing in
>     other ICANN sTLD registry agreements (including the recent
>     agreements covering .asia, .jobs, .mobi, .tel and .travel) – that
>     would permit .coop to seek an exemption from complying with certain
>     Consensus Policies with ICANN approval.  The proposed contract is
>     silent as to who at ICANN would decide on such exemptions and by
>     what criteria.  I’m not sure why .coop should have a special
>     exemption with regard to complying with Consensus Policies that more
>     recent sTLDs don’t enjoy.  I am concerned about this precedent for
>     the future.  Are others as well?  
>
>      
>     Here is the text of the new provision
>     (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/coop/draft-proposed-agreement-19apr07.pdf):
>
>     “In the event that the Sponsor has a reasonable basis to believe
>     that the established Consensus Policy is not relevant, or may
>     represent an unreasonable burden to the Sponsored Community, Sponsor
>     shall have the right to seek an exemption from ICANN.  If ICANN
>     declines the exemption, the Sponsor and ICANN shall utilize the
>     process for resolution of disputes set forth in Article 5/.//”
>     / Section 3.1(b)(vii)
>
>     I also should note that ICANN’s announcement regarding the proposed
>     .coop registry agreement
>     (http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20apr07.htm) states
>     that:
>
>     “The proposed .COOP agreement substantially follows the format of
>     other recent sTLD registry agreements negotiated by ICANN. The
>     agreement is for a ten-year term, and provides for the same set of
>     requirements for these key terms:
>
>         * compliance with consensus and temporary policies except to the
>           extent policy development has been delegated to the sponsoring
>           organization”
>
>     Again, unless I am missing something, this appears to me to be
>     inaccurate.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Jon
>
>      

--
---
CORE Internet Council of Registrars   http://corenic.org
WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel +4122 929-5744 Fax +4122 929-5745 secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxx