[NA-Discuss] Developing accountability for registrars discussion

[Michael Maranda]

We should go through this idea, and perhaps establish a working group?

The survey is a key element.   (You mention it was some of the most
important money spent)

We should probably start there..,  how extensive or brief a survey
design?  What are the costs around conducting such a survey?  What are
our (potential, collective) means of undertaking such a survey?
(Assume scenarios a) full ICANN support, b) some ICANN support, and c)
no ICANN support)

I think the survey itself generates a great deal of awareness of ICANN
and At large, and the data gathered and disseminated are likewise part
of a public education campaign.

Regards,

MM

On 8/6/07, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe at consumer.org> wrote:
> Hello, there. I wanted to make this group aware of an off-list
> discussion forwarded to me, which I responded to, related to the RAA
> evaluations and creating some sort of system of accountability for
> registrars. I am not in the RAA working group, and probably don't have
> time to be, but this group may want to contribute to this discussion or
> have its own here, as I think the RAA work should be of considerable
> interest to consumers.
>
> Danny Younger responds to Seth Reiss and my response is last.
>
> Beau Brendler
> Director, Consumer Reports WebWatch
> http://www.consumerwebwatch.org
>
> From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
> Date: 20 July 2007 18:21:49 BDT
> To: "Seth M. Reiss" <seth.reiss at lex-ip.com>,
> raa-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] Starting the discussion
>
> Hi Seth,
>
> Registrars have, on several occasions, attempted to
> create a code of conduct.  Their most recent version
> (which dates back several years) is here:
>
> http://www.icann-registrars.org/html_docs/CodeofConduct3.htm
>
> The list of registrars willing to agree to this code
> of conduct -- zero -- is maintained here:
>
> http://www.icann-registrars.org/listcodeofconductsubscribing.htm
>
> One approach might be to have the registries each
> individually craft a code of conduct for their
> accredited registrars (this is what Eurid, the .eu
> registry operator did) -- see
> http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/CoC/rules_proc_en.pdf
>
> So far, these codes rely on voluntary compliance;
> unfortunately, there is little actual incentive for
> registrars to comply.
>
> regards,
> Danny
>
> --- "Seth M. Reiss" <seth.reiss at lex-ip.com> wrote:
>
> I like Vittorio's idea of developing a best
> practices industry code for
> registrars. Registrars can decide to comply on a
> voluntary basis and perhaps
> even undergo audits with independent companies so
> compliance can be checked.
> Registrants can decide to pay a few extra dollars to
> use compliant
> registrars and obtain the additional security.  This
> would keep ICANN out of
> the policing roles, which I suspect it prefers to
> avoid.
>
>
> Beau Brendler wrote:
>
> This exchange was forwarded to me and I wanted to offer whatever help we
> can on this topic, as I think it is an important one.
>
> Briefly, WebWatch about five years ago now developed a basic set of
> guidelines to "improve the credibility of Web sites," as we said at the
> time. We also developed several sets of category-specific guidelines
> (one for search engines, another for travel Web sites, another for
> health Web sites). We had some good success with the general guidelines,
> and some less measurable but notable success with the more
> industry-specific ones.
>
> I wanted to briefly outline here how we did it, because I think some of
> the principles might be portable.
>
> * Survey research of consumers. We did a national poll of U.S. Web users
> (six months experience minimum) over 18 to find out what types of
> characteristics of Web sites they considered "credible." We did this so
> that we could point to empirical data in any forthcoming campaign to get
> companies, Web publishers, etc., to join -- so that we didn't turn
> people off by saying, "we're Consumer Reports, and here's what you
> should do to make your Web site more credible."  The guidelines are
> here:
> http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm
> The national poll was expensive but was probably some of the most
> important money we spent.
>
> * Publication of guidelines. We used the survey research to create the
> guidelines, then publicized them and went directly to a number of
> companies, some of them Fortune 500, to get feedback.
>
> * Compliance mechanism. We stopped short of creating a seal of approval,
> since our research showed that such seals tend to be much more popular
> among the community of sealholders than recognizable by consumers. In
> addition, seals can be faked, upkeep and policing is costly, etc. So we
> started a pledge campaign, with an online form, where companies and Web
> publishers could make a promise to uphold the guidelines. Our staff
> would then review the site, and pass it or fail it (about 90 percent of
> the failed sites made changes and improvements and re-pledged, and
> passed).
>
> * We listed the sites on a page on our Web site
> (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/praise-worthy.cfm) and allow
> participating sites to link back to the guidelines page (not the page
> where their company is named). We still continue to get pledges and add
> company names to the list.
>
> * We created a national advertising campaign to promote the sites that
> pledged, and the guidelines themselves as a sort of consumer bill of
> rights.
>
> I think a similar system could be used for the registrars. Indeed, it is
> voluntary compliance, but the "wisdom of the masses" assists in
> enforcement -- we do get e-mails from consumers when they interact with
> a company on the compliance list that doesn't measure up. In those
> cases, we investigate, then publicize the investigation and the result.
>
> The low compliance rate in the venture you describe below may be due to
> a number of factors, but I would guess if there were more third-party
> involvement it might create more incentive..
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAA-WG mailing list
> RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.ica
> nn.org
>
>
> RAA WG Online:
> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Whenever a single political movement corners power we find ourselves in
> the realm of totalitarian kitsch."
> -- Kundera
>
> _______________________________________________
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> ---
> Draft MoU with ICANN:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
>
> Draft Operating Principles:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
>
> Draft Code of Conduct:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
President, Association For Community Networking

Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:
http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org