[At-Large] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments

Wed Sep 26 04:15:43 UTC 2012

There is another way to do verification.  Have the reports/complaints of
invalid information taken seriously.

ICANN is known for not taking action.
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-letter-to-beckwith-03sep02.htm

For years after this letter, the whois information was still garbage.

When I contact registrars about invalid information, they don't really do
anything. They send a notice to the registrant, then give them time to
respond.

What registrars should do is require valid information, and verification
within 5 days. If the information is accidentally not valid, then suspend
the domain until the information is valid and confirmed. If intentionally
invalid (ie. no street, or phone number 555-555-1212, then immediate
termination or suspension until a $200 penalty is paid.

> Carlton, there is a lesson to be learned from the continued problems
> with item 10 (verification of both e-mail and telephone numbers), and
> I hope the Board and new CEO are paying attention. According to the
> report, registrars are now saying that they will do one but not
> both.  Law enforcement wants both.
>
> It is worth considering how we got ourselves into this predicament.
> It is almost impossible these days to sign onto a mailing list or get
> a free id on some web site without clicking on a link in an e-mail.
> Yet apparently, you can register a domain name without such a nicety.
> If we (we being ICANN) had not ignored the issue of Whois validation
> for so long, the trivial e-mail verification would have been done for
> longer than many of us can remember. Now we are at the stage where we
> need to beg to have done what the rest of the world considers
> business as usual.
>
> Phone verification is a lot more costly, and it is natural that
> registrars are reluctant to make this investment, particularly as
> noted in the other document, under the current rules, where some
> registrars could avoid having to do this for up to five years, giving
> them a significant advantage.
>
> But if ICANN had paid even a modicom of attention to these problem long
> ago:
>
> - we would not be negotiating just phone verification as e-mail would
> have already been addressed
> - when we VERY PAINFULLY modified the RAA in 2008/9, we ignored AGAIN
> the issue of making future contracts effective in far less than 5 years.
>
> Hopefully going forward, we will not make these kind of mistakes
> again. The historian Barbara Tuchman, in a book I can recommend, "The
> March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam", defines "folly" as:
> - an actions clearly contrary to the self-interest of those group
> pursuing the them;
> - carried out by a group or succession of people and not just the act
> of a single lunatic;
> - people at the time understood the error and gave valid alternatives.
>
> Clearly ICANN has been guilty of Folly. Perhaps we will stop. (And of
> course, At-Large should be a large part of that solution.)
>
> Alan
>
> At 25/09/2012 07:40 PM, *Carlton Samuels wrote:
>>So here we are.  What do we know? And, when did we know it?
>>
>>Under the label 'Current Situation and Recent Developments' in the  *RAA
>>Negotiations Update* document, it says:
>>
>>  "six additional negotiating sessions, including two all-day in-person
>>meetings held in Washington DC (one of which was attended by Governmental
>>Advisory Committee members and representatives from the law enforcement
>>representatives)...........the negotiations since Prague has largely
>>focused on the key areas of Whois verification and data retention, which
>>are part of 12 GAC/law enforcement recommendations."
>>
>>In case you missed the significance, there is further contextualization:
>>
>>"I
>>n Prague, we highlighted four critical elements of the law enforcement
>>recommendations:
>>(1)verification / validation of Whois data;
>>(2)enhanced collection of information related to registrants (data
>> retention);
>>(3)clarification of registrar responsibility regarding resellers and
>>privacy/proxy services;
>>and
>>(4)creation of contacts for reports of domain name abuse.
>>
>>The ALAC and At-Large have certainly not been mute on said 'critical
>>elements'. And while the ALAC is also on record demanding transparent
>>negotiations if only because of the pivotal role the RAA plays in
>> consensus
>>policy development,  I personally do not have any the current information
>>regarding At-Large/ALAC dispositions at these sessions.  All things being
>>equal, it appears the At-Large [and the ALAC] were treated like unloved
>>country cousins on your father's side, thrice removed.
>>
>>I'm pleased to hear negotiations have progressed in certain areas. See
>> the
>>Summary of Negotiations Status. Look closely at Item #10: Registrar
>>Validation of Registrant Data. Apply the stoplight status here and
>>contextualize what this means.
>>
>>I have attached both documents for ease of access.
>>
>>- Carlton Samuels
>>   [Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG]
>>
>>
>>==============================
>>Carlton A Samuels
>>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>=============================
>>
>>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>From: ICANN News Alert <communications at icann.org>
>>Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM
>>Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement
>>Amendments
>>To: carlton.samuels at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>**
>>  [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert
>>
>>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-24sep12-en.htm
>>------------------------------
>>Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
>>
>>24 September 2012
>>
>>In advance of the ICANN meeting in Toronto, ICANN and the Registrars are
>>posting two documents on the status of negotiations of amendments to the
>>Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Since Prague, significant
>> progress
>>has been made, though certain key issues remain open. There were six
>>negotiation sessions, including a full day session with participants from
>>the Governmental Advisory Committee and representatives of law
>> enforcement.
>>As reported earlier, there is agreement in many areas, including nearly
>> all
>>law enforcement recommendations. In the two remaining recommendations
>> still
>>under discussion, ICANN and the registrars are much closer to reaching a
>>negotiated position on Whois verification and data retention.
>>
>>On Whois verification, a framework for improving Whois accuracy has been
>>developed, however, ICANN and the registrars still have not reached
>>agreement on the number of fields that are to be verified.
>>
>>On data retention, discussion among law enforcement representatives,
>>registrars and ICANN indicates there is agreement in principle on a
>>two-tiered retention schedule to account for differing data privacy
>>obligations. More detail on each of these items, as well as status of
>>negotiations on the other law enforcement requests, are provided in the
>>documents posted today:
>>
>>*RAA Negotiation
>>Update<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf>
>>:* A memo providing detail on the negotiations since the Prague meeting
>> and
>>providing some questions for further community input.
>>
>>*Summary Chart of Status of
>>Negotiations<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf>
>>:* Detailed status of negotiation on each of the 12 law enforcement
>>requests, noting the remaining items remaining for discussion. Key
>> requests
>>from Registrars and ICANN for additional terms in the RAA are also
>>identified at the end of the chart.
>>
>>Because the negotiations have been focused on these key areas, ICANN and
>>the Registrars have not yet reached a fully negotiated agreement on all
>>terms and provisions within the RAA. When available, a full draft will be
>>posted for public comment. Until that time, ICANN and the Registrars
>>welcome feedback on the discussion topics identified in the summary memo
>> to
>>help inform the community discussions in Toronto. Comments can be
>> forwarded
>>to the RAA Negotiations Status
>>Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement>
>>.
>>
>>Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf"
>>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>>         filename="Negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf"
>>X-Attachment-Id: f_h7jn3jpl0
>>
>>Content-Type: application/pdf;
>>         name="Negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf"
>>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>>         filename="Negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf"
>>X-Attachment-Id: f_h7jn3yky1
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>At-Large mailing list
>>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>