No new agreement, no new TLDs.
Last week I wrote about how ICANN’s latest proposed registry agreement for new TLD operators.
The agreement mandates that new TLD operators use only domain registrars that have signed the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement with ICANN.
The problem is that the RAA doesn’t exist yet. As far as we know, it’s still be negotiated. And negotiations are contentious.
Michele Neylon of Irish registrar Blacknight submitted comments to ICANN about this clause that I think sum up the concerns:
What is ICANN’s rationale for this criterion?
While it would be expected that ICANN accredited registrars party to an RAA would be used, this document specifies a version of the RAA that currently does not exist.
Does this mean that ICANN wants to drive a “wedge” between registrars and new TLD applicants?
Or does this mean that ICANN does not trust those of us who are on the 2009 RAA?
The RAA negotiations are currently ongoing and while they may be concluded shortly any agreement that comes out of the negotiations should be agreed to on its own merits ie. without this form of external pressure.
Or is it ICANN’s intention to use any delay with the RAA as an excuse for delaying the launch of new TLDs?
A rational explanation for this specific clause would be appreciated.
Philip Corwin says
So ICANN is taking the position that until a registrar signs the revised RAA (which does not yet exist) it can continue to sell .com domains but not .wtf domains.
WTF?
Volker Greimann says
I think the title of this article misses the point. ICANN has decided to build a new roadblock for the new gTLDs by tying it to these negotiations and _at the same time_ has put a stack of new issues onto the negotiation table that took registrars the better part of the last two weeks to form an opinion on.
Also do not forget no negotiation meetings were held in late December or January.
Michele says
@Volker
Well I think Andrew’s basing his article on the comment I submitted not on the RAA talks in general 🙂
Michele