[ALAC] RAA 3.7.8

[Alan Greenberg]

At 22/03/2013 05:01 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>Thanks Alan
>
>I think my first comment is to repeat the words - still not agreed 
>by the registrars.  It is where we need to say we think what is 
>proposed is okay - or not. I'm sorry you are pessimistic - I think 
>we need to at least try.  And if I have one criticism that overrides 
>others, it is that there have been so many reports on whois accuracy 
>- it was discussed by the DNSO (before it was split into the GNSO 
>and ccNSO) in 2001 - how many times are we putting off saying enough 
>is enough - waiting for the next version.  If we don't ask for 
>change, there will always be yet another version.

All I was saying is that we should focus on changes that can 
reasonably be included at this time. Raising brand new issues that 
have not been mentioned before is a wind-mill tilting effort. If we 
do want to do this, we should be armed with suggested draft language.


>And at the heard of what Garth is saying is inaccuracies.  My point 
>is that we need to define accuracy and words like what is 
>commercially practicable and reasonable - so that there is a basis 
>on which we can insist that action is taken.  THEN we need to 
>require action.  And if we don't have a level of verification that 
>starts with whether the domain name meets basic levels of accuracy, 
>there will not be a basis for action.

As I said in my reply to Garth, such words are pretty standard in 
contracts, and when you try to define them in details, it is very 
difficult and will often create just the kind of loophole you don't 
want. But that being said, propose some wording.

Alan


>Again - there is work to be done.
>I have to teach today, and will be out most of tomorrow.  So Monday 
>is the soonest I can get something together.  But it does need to be 
>comprehensive - and it does need to say that we are satisfied with 
>yet another review, and yet another version of the RAA that is slightly better
>
>Holly
>On 23/03/2013, at 7:08 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> > Holly, the Whois accuracy program specification does go into some 
> detail about what validations are to be done (still not agreed to 
> by registrars). Given the fact that this *might* be the last 
> opportunity to alter the RAA before adoption, if you feel that 
> there needs to be further definition or clarity in those words, you 
> need to propose alternative wording now. I personally think that we 
> will not get a lot more clarity into those words "in this coming 
> version" than what ICANN is now requesting, so I am not sure the 
> effort is well placed at this time.
> >
> > But that was not the issue that Garth raised on the call, nor 
> what he had earlier proposed 
> (https://community.icann.org/x/SQcQAg). His issue was whether the 
> provisions required to registrar to take action if there were 
> inaccuracies identified (even within the current weak definitions, 
> such as not having an @ sign in an e-mail address, or having no 
> address or phone number at all), or whether they could safely 
> ignire the requirement with impunity. The latest draft sets a time 
> limit and very clearly tells the registrar what actions they need 
> to take if they are to be compliant with the RAA.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 22/03/2013 03:40 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
> >> Hi Alan
> >>
> >> Not that simple
> >>
> >> What is meant by 'at the time' - this was one of the issues 
> raised - and not agreed to - in the negotiations.  Is it solved?
> >>
> >> As the Final Final report said, the requirement for 
> re-verification hasn't worked
> >>
> >> What is meant by 'accurate' - or 'inaccurate' - the clause talks 
> about a policy that would define what is reasonable and 
> commercially practicable to obtain accuracy.  It doesn't exist and 
> we do not know what is meant - or rather what the registries and 
> registrars believe it means.  Michele, for one, has used different 
> terms and made some suggestions. There was a whole session two 
> ICANN's ago on what it might mean.....
> >>
> >> So Alan - on the face of it, you are correct.  But if there is 
> no understanding/agreement of what the terms mean, enforcement is an issue.
> >>
> >> On Monday, I"ll be doing a lot of work to contribute to the 
> discussion but please, do not pretend that clause 3.7.8 is 
> enforceable, even with the new bits.
> >>
> >> Holly
> >> On 23/03/2013, at 5:57 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >>
> >> > Garth, on the recent teleconference on the RAA you raised the issue
> >> > of RAA 3.7.8 and said the problem of its being unenforceable by ICANN
> >> > was still not resolved.
> >> >
> >> > As I read it, 3.7.8 (and associated specifications) now says:
> >> >
> >> > - verification of contact information at time of registration required
> >> > - periodic re-verification
> >> > - upon notification of inaccuracy
> >> > - if inaccurate information is found and not corrected within 15
> >> > days, registrar must terminate or suspend registration, or place it
> >> > on clientHold.
> >> >
> >> > If the registrar does not do this, they have violated the 
> terms of the RAA.
> >> >
> >> > What more is it that you are looking for?
> >> >
> >> > Alan
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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)
> >