[At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation

[McTim]

Evan,

Just because Donuts requested something be removed from the RA, doesn't
mean it was.

It is widely acknowledged amongst gTLD applicants that the RA is "take it
or leave it", with the caveat that you can try to redline bits of it, but
that will mean significant delays.  Like a year or more.  I doubt that
Donuts would want to face that.

If you have actual contracts that show that the PICs have been eliminated,
I would like to see that, and I am sure many new gTLD applicants who have
not yet signed their RAs would like to see it as well.

If Donuts got this in their contracts, there would be hell to pay with the
GAC.  I can guarantee that ICANN lawyers understand the implication of
caving on this point.

As someone who went through the contract negotiation process, I seriously
doubt this would happen.

rgds,

McTim






On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> On 2 September 2014 13:45, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>  The PIC provisions in at least some TLD applications explicitly entitle
>>> the registry to rescind any or all PIC provisions without notice or cause.​
>>>
>>
>>
>> Steve Crocker was pretty emphatic in Singapore when addressing ALAC that
>> this is just not the case.
>>
>
> ​
> I know. I was there, and it was I who raised the issue. Steve's answer was
> ill-informed.
>
>
>
>> Do you have examples?
>>
>
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47254471/1-1489-82287_Donuts_PIC_SS_Final.pdf
>
>
> ​Last paragraph in the document.
>
> - Evan​
>
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel