[NA-Discuss] [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read

[Danny Younger]

Wendy,

When this whole experiment started, the stated intent of the Joint Project Agreement was to transition U.S. Government management of the DNS to a private entity that would function as the new manager.  If the U.S. Government was still the manager of the DNS doubtless it would address criminal activity.  Why then should the role of the new manager be any different?  Why should ICANN not be empowered to accredit institutions that will rapidly take down or suspend the domains of those engaged in criminal activity?  


--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
> To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe at consumer.org>
> Cc: "ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:35 AM
> Thanks Beau,
> A few points of question:
> 
> > ICANN should require standardized Acceptable Use
> Policy in registration agreements to address criminal fraud,
> when this directly affects the operational stability,
> reliability, security and global interoperability of the
> Internet.
> 
> I believe it is not ICANN's or registrars' role to
> address criminal
> activity, beyond not knowingly aiding it.
> 
> > Enforce and make public the results of dispute
> mechanisms in place that obligate registrars to facilitate
> enforcement of abusive registration policies, such as the
> UDRP.
> 
> Without endorsing any of those dispute resolution policies,
> I think
> transparency about their effects is useful.  ICANN, rather
> than the
> registrars, should be responsible for the enforcement and
> disclosure,
> though.
> 
> I would still prefer to see concrete information-forcing
> mechanisms,
> e.g., requiring prominent notification of deviations from a
> standard
> set of contract terms.  Market competition only works when
> consumers
> know they are making a choice and understand the terms of
> the choice.
> 
> Finally, I'll repeat my call for third-party
> beneficiary status for
> the affected public.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
> 
> 
> Brendler, Beau wrote:
> > Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed
> statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar
> accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim
> Cole a couple of weeks ago.
> > 
> > As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of
> consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to
> this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's
> important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a
> statement as possible regarding the user community's
> concerns.
> > 
> > The document is brief, and in two parts: The first
> part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as
> described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the
> briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of
> user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied
> from "Section F" of the summary document (you can
> find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing
> page here:
> >
> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa)
> > Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course
> acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and
> language in here from his own public comment document. I
> hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this.
> > 
> > The second part revisits some of the initial comments
> made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of
> these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to
> perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for
> consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations
> from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable
> at this point.
> > 
> > If you have anything to add, please do so! This
> represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we
> want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of
> August, and it's here.
> > 
> > Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this
> together, so please send any additions or comments to this
> list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the
> final.
> > 
> >
> ****************************************************************************
> > ********
> > SCANNED
> > 
> >
> ****************************************************************************
> > ********
> > 
> > 
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > 
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
> phone: +1.914.374.0613
> Visiting Professor, American University Washington College
> of Law
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.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
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------