[NA-Discuss] Developing accountability for registrars discussion

Mon Aug 6 15:44:04 EDT 2007

The survey was pretty extensive, about 30 questions as I recall, though
about 10 of those were for establishing baselines. Cost could be a big
hurdle -- we spent about $110,000 on the first one, in 2002, and $125K
on the second one, in '05. At the time WebWatch was comfortably funded
by two foundations. This was for poll-quality data, all telephone
surveys, 2,500 interviews boiled down to 1,500 respondents, the whole
bit. This was sort of a reaction on my part to the dilution of survey
research at the time. I wanted real polling.

Backing down from that, you could go the Survey Monkey route, but the
credibility diminishes and it becomes less interesting to the press.

-----Original Message-----
From: tropology at gmail.com [mailto:tropology at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Maranda
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Brendler, Beau
Cc: NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Developing accountability for registrars
discussion

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.i
> ca
> 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-lis
> ts.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

***
Scanned