[ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois

Garth Bruen gbruen at knujon.com
Mon Jan 14 18:03:15 UTC 2013


Going to bring this up on today's NARALO call, Verisign can't really be
faulted for this stance. I think the issue is that ICANN's "self-policing"
model for contracted parties is and should be dead.

There is no room for "trust" in any expectation that the contracted parties
(or ICANN) will do what they have signed-on to do let alone something
they're not actually held to.

-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:58 PM
To: Holly Raiche; Whois-WG; At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois

Holly, I have no specific knowledge of this issue (and have not participated
in any of the associated sessions at the last ICANN meeting), but from the
wording of the letter and having looked at the contracts, I think the issue
is that for the .net agreement (signed
11 July 2011), there is simply no provision for contractual compliance
audits. The .com agreemnet signed last December has a specific and clear
provision allowing such audits
(http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/com/agreement-01dec12-e
n.htm
- Section 3.4 Contractual and Operational Compliance Audits).

So I suspect it is an issue of a company refusing to be audited without a
contractual basis for it, since presumably that would set a precedent and
possibly open them up to liabilities that they would otherwise not face -
something a public company is typically reluctant to do. But I would be
happy to have someone with real legal knowledge or corporate experience
chime in if I am wrong.

But if I am right, it is yet another example of an ICANN contract that was
signed without having the real teeth in it that we need.

Alan

At 12/01/2013 03:01 AM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>Hi Everyone
>
>I"m not sure if you all have caught up with the latest - Verisign's 
>refusal to participate in the audi program!  I'm not sure I am happy to 
>have our concerns about the enforceability of the RAA proven right.  
>But is there any point to an audit that does not include Verisign!?
>
>Is this something we should respond to - at least to say that the RAA 
>must be changed, and that an audit - to have any vaalidity at all - 
>must include Verigisn
>
>Holly
>
>  
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/kane-to-serad-et-al-08jan1
> 3-en
>
>
>On 11/01/2013, at 3:05 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> > Thanks Carlton. Can you or staff provide URLs??
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 10/01/2013 10:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >
> >> Add the URLs to previous ALAC WHOIS Statements and its good to go.
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe
> e+(ALAC)
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee
>+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA
C)




More information about the ALAC mailing list