[NA-Discuss] Developing accountability for registrars discussion

Tue Aug 7 06:22:44 EDT 2007

There already IS a working group - that's where the message was  
forwarded from.

>> 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

On 6 Aug 2007, at 20:29, Michael Maranda wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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