[ALAC] Compliance complaint

[Garth Bruen]

All,

Given the recent announcement by NTIA/DOC, it is more important than ever
for the Internet community to provide oversight of ICANN in new era of
global governance. The US couldn't keep its baby bird in the nest forever,
but this puts the responsibility on us. 

So it appears Compliance has "gone into the bunker" if they won't respond to
ALAC or even the board. At least everyone now knows how it feels to be an
ordinary Internet user and not get results from ICANN Compliance. Is this
Accountability and Transparency? Why the secrecy?

It leaves us with a number a gaping concerns. The fact that they announced a
complaint limit increase from 100 to 300 should not be seen as an
improvement. If it is possible have unlimited registrations in a week, there
should be a capacity for unlimited complaints. That they lack the tools and
staff to deal with the "real-world" volume of complaints is of course a
fact, but it is something they should have fixed years ago. Honestly, this
should be marked as an overall organizational failure especially since they
have consistently claimed they have the resources they need and can handle
the expansion of new gTLDs. 

In terms of expiry of the domain, this is irrelevant for many reasons,
already stated. "Henry Nguyen Gong" has 1,179 domains. This is not just a an
problem for the way Compliance accepts complaints, it's a problem for the
way ICANN deals with registrars. The important detail here is this is not a
"rogue domainer" but rather a specific issue within the registrar BizCn.
"Henry Nguyen Gong"/privacy-protect.cn is a privacy service ONLY offered
through BizCn. Privacy services are supposed only be offered by the
registrar or contracted through a registrar. So is this a rogue privacy
service or is it rogue behavior within BizCn. Either way it is another
violation of the RAA. 

The new answer from ICANN/BizCn contradicts their earlier answers which is
incredibly problematic because BizCn's contract was renewed while this issue
was still on the table. 

Along with the UDRP issue I sent earlier this calls for a comprehensive
approach to ICANN Compliance oversight. We need an ongoing effort that works
directly with Compliance on all areas within the mandate and we need real
cooperation, what has happened since is not even a shadow of cooperation. 

-Garth


-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:32 AM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Holly Raiche
Cc: ALAC Working List
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Compliance complaint

Thanks Olivier. I guess we should tell them that this will be a discussion
item so they are not taken by surprise (although I would hope they could
have figured it out for themselves).

I note on the Singapore page, there is no section for topics for the
Compliance meeting.

Alan

At 13/03/2014 05:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>you're correct, we have heard nothing back.
>
>Since sending our official ALAC Statement to Maguy Serad on 27 February 
>2014, I have received no confirmation of receipt whatsoever. Having 
>CC'ed both Fadi Chehadé, ICANN CEO and Steve Crocker, ICANN Board 
>Chair, I asked Steve when I had lunch with him last week at the London
IETF.
>Immediately after receiving the note, Steve asked Compliance whether 
>the Board should get involved and the response from Compliance was "no 
>thanks, we'll work on it ourselves."
>
>I find it very poor etiquette from Compliance to not have at least 
>acknowledged receipt of the ALAC Advice. Nonetheless, we should be 
>pursuing this question when we meet with Compliance in Singapore.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
>ALAC Chair
>
>On 13/03/2014 01:30, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > I am assuming that the lack of a reply from Olivier means we have 
> > heard nothing back.
> >
> > Compliance has already they don't want to spend the time with us 
> > going over the same presentation that they will give in the public 
> > session, so focusing on our proposal for a new submission tool seems
appropriate.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 12/03/2014 07:25 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
> >> Hi Alan (and Garth)
> >>
> >> Well done - so far. My suggestion - that this be front and centre 
> >> with any ALAC discussions with Compliance
> >>
> >> Holly
> >>
> >> On 12/03/2014, at 4:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >>
> >> > I received a message from Compliance on 10 March saying that the
> >> complaint we submitted had been closed because "Based on the 
> >> current Whois data, the domain was suspended when the complaint was 
> >> received by ICANN, or the registrar demonstrated that it took 
> >> reasonable steps to investigate the Whois inaccuracy claim by 
> >> suspending, deleting, cancelling or otherwise deactivating the domain
name."
> >> >
> >> > On checking the Whois record, the domain still exists, but it is 
> >> > in
> >> "client Hold" status which means that it is no longer in the zone 
> >> file. A DNS lookup confirmed this.
> >> >
> >> > The domain is due to expire on 24 April.
> >> >
> >> > So the result of this exercise is that the particular domain that
> >> we were complaining about is out of service. It remains to be seen 
> >> whether it will pop back again or not. The fictitious e-mail 
> >> address is still reported (by domaintools.com) as being in use by 
> >> over 1000 other domain names. It is not clear how many of them 
> >> might also be unusable, but at least one that I checked 
> >> (updflashplayer.com) is still in the DNS but does not seem to be live.
> >> >
> >> > To do further investigation would require more time than I have 
> >> > at
> >> the moment, and access to domain tools that I don't have. Perhaps 
> >> Garth would like to follow0up and if so, I ask that he contact me 
> >> directly to develop a plan of action.
> >> >
> >> > The bottom line seems to be that the compliance process worked in
> >> this case, but it is clearly insufficient to address the root 
> >> problem that was being identified. The complaint process that we 
> >> have suggested to Compliance would be far better suited. Have we 
> >> had ANY response from them?
> >> >
> >> > Alan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > At 18/02/2014 05:03 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >> >>> The problem summary:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Reporter Name: Alan Greenberg, on behalf of ALAC Leadership