[RAA-WG] Starting the discussion

[RJGlass | America@Large]

Vittorio or whoever,

I would suggest that you take notes on the input from the group and relay it
matter-of-factly to the board.  Maybe a summary can be made and we can make
comments before it is submitted.  I would think a working group should have
time to give proper input and then pass the info up to whoever are the
'deciders' (sorry, couldn't help that).  Please let the board know that if
our input is ignored, then it is completely useless for participation to
occur.

My input:

The registrars should be audited by ICANN annually.

Penalties for not adhering to contractual agreements with ICANN should incur
penalties.  Real penalties, not a censure.

Registrars should NOT be charged extra for these services that should be
provided anyway.  Funding for ICANN is already being provided to deal with
these very scenarios, yet nothing has been done to date.  The budget should
include items for dealing with these things.  The agreement with the DOC
charges ICANN with this stuff and I don't think they should be surprised by
the fact that they have to deal with this stuff.

Should we really suggest that registrants sue registrars?  Well, they should
more often than they do, but this is not the solution to anything.  We
should be trying to prevent costly litigation.  By the way, a registrant has
a 1-year lease on a domain (in fact), with an option to renew.  When
litigation is enacted, things can take years.  What is the registrant to do
in the meantime?  I don't think this is a way to approach things.

My experience with registrars shows that they try to get around their
responsibilities to their customers at any given opportunity.  This is not
going to change if a voluntary compliance is adopted.  Example: right now
I'm transferring 2 domains between registrars.  In order to do this, I had
to go outside the designated channels on the losing registrar in order to
get the appropriate information to initiate the transfer. (This is not the
first time, and not the first registrar to give me a similar run-around).
In other words, sometimes simple things are more difficult than advertised.
Why? Because they don't have to or want to.  Personally, I don't like having
to 'see for myself' the performance of a regsitrar that they do not abide by
their obligations.  Registrants have no recourse anyway.

So, In response to Dr. Twomey's narrative...

The RegisterFly debacle - This underlies a need for an update, I agree.  But
really what needs updated is within ICANN's process with dealing with this.
As I remember, it took some members who are posting here to be persistent in
demanding action before ICANN would crawl out of bed.  I can't beleive it
took so long to deal with a common business occurrence.  The reason, there
were no plans in place so it was back to playing grab-a$$, for lack of a
better term.  Therefore, ICANN needs to begin to be proactive rather than
reactive.

Now "there are 865 registrars," so we got what we asked for - more
competition.  Now, the issue is ensuring stability.  ICANN is charged with
ensuring the stability of the Internet namespace and again should be
prooactive in ensuring that agreements are carried out properly.  Therefore,
enforcement is part of the job.

Paul notes that there is difficuly in data/proxy items.  This is because in
the event of proxy, there is no clear data.  This is by design, and must be
dealt with in some manner.  I agree that registrants and their data need
protection.  However, if a registrar (take 1&1's registrant agreement)
appears to own a domain it could be difficult for the real owner-payee to
have a leg to stand on.  I think there should be a whole working group on
registrant-proxy.

As noted above, see now we're trying to squeeze so much into a short
timeframe WE ARE NOT ABLE TO PRACTICE DUE DILLIGENCE.  Why?  because it has
been ignored too long and we're trying to have 10 years of input shoved into
6 months.  So I suggest we slow down before rushing further and get a real
RA that we won't have to revisit through the Supreme Court every year or so.

Likewise, Data escrow should have a working group initiated.

On the subject of ICANN intervening.  I suggest that ICANN set up a
'Registrar/Registry Expedition Team'   A unit that functions temporarily in
place of a contracted company in case of problems.

Similarly, I suggest ICANN set up a 'Registrant Expedition Team' that could
directly handle registrant problems that are unrelated to the UDRP.

Dr. Twomey states, "There's also no way that registrants can measure the
performance of registrars in any independent comparative way. That should be
encouraged"  Well yes, BUT in a competitive market (see increase
competition) it is very difficult for consumers to discern between the
players in the market - by its very nature.  I agree that there should be a
type of system, but maybe that too needs a working group.  I am interested
in what type of encouragement could be offered.

This is my take, and will now begin a new thread with the issues raised by
Dr. Twomey.

-Randy Glass
A at L

--------

Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must be Reviewed

21 March 2007

President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey today called for major review of
ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA) and the Accreditation
process.

"What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear
there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process
and the content of the RAA" he said. "This is going to be a key debate at
our Lisbon meeting scheduled for 26 - 30 March 2007. There must be clear
decisions made on changes. As a community we cannot put this off."

"ICANN introduced competition to the domain name market in 1998. Back then
there was one registrar. There are now over 865. That's a good thing because
it has made domain names cheaper and offered more choice. But the RAA was
designed and signed when the domain name market was much smaller. The market
now supports about 70 million generic TLD names and is growing." Dr Twomey
said.

"Registrants suffer most from weaknesses in the RAA and I want to make sure
that ICANN's accreditation process and our agreement gives us the ability to
respond more strongly and flexibly in the future" he said.

"What is presently happening with RegisterFly makes it clear that there are
also some problems with proxy registrations. Specifically, proxy
registrations are available as a choice, but people who have them have great
difficulties getting access to their data and having their domain name
transferred where a registrar is uncooperative or has other problems with
transfer. ICANN has had difficulty accessing this data too," Dr Twomey said.


"We need to expedite data escrow. There has been a long and detailed
discussion and much interaction between ICANN staff and registrars on this
issue. But we need to reach a conclusion. Recent events and the Lisbon
meeting present that opportunity. There are resource implications and useage
rules that need to be discussed among the ICANN community. I look forward to
the continuing efforts and collaboration of registrars with ICANN in that
regard " he said.

"Registrants clearly want ICANN to have more capacity to access data on
their behalf if there are significant problems with their registrar. There
is a need for better enforcement mechanisms and an ability for ICANN to
intervene more quickly if a registrar fails or is engaged in damaging
business practice" he added.

"There's also no way that registrants can measure the performance of
registrars in any independent comparative way. That should be encouraged" Dr
Twomey said.

"The vast majority of ICANN's accredited registrars offer high levels of
service and integrity. But as we have seen, there is the risk that poorly
performing registrars can hurt registrants very significantly. If the domain
name industry wants to remain community self –regulating as it has been
until now we need to put in place further sensible and practical measures to
protect registrants" he noted.

Dr Twomey said he would like to see the following issues included in any
discussion: *Purpose of Register Accreditation Policy and Agreement * What
is the primary purpose of the Registration Accreditation Agreement? Is it a
compliance tool? If so how can it be strengthened to protect registrants?

*Rating of Registrars* How should ICANN and/or the registrar constituency
encourage a system that rates registrars according to customer service and
performance and should this be available to registrants?

*Affiliated Registrars / Group ownership* Affiliated registrars have common
ownership or control. What is the best mechanism for ICANN to hold
affiliated registrars accountable for an affiliate's actions?

*Additional compliance enforcement tools* Stronger compliance tools need to
be included in any reform to the RAA. What are those tools? Do they
encompass liquidated damages? Should registrars be able to be suspended more
readily? Are there other options? What are the mechanisms that allow such
options to be enforced quickly?

*Transfer policy * What elements of the transfer policy need to be reformed?
Should registrants have an alternative to their current registrar for the
issuing of authcodes and the unlocking of them? Should ICANN or another
entity be able to do this?

*Registrar operator skill testing* How is it possible to assess registrar
skills and to train registrars to a common standard of performance upon
which registrants can rely?
 *Accreditation by purchase* It is possible for companies to 'avoid'
accreditation application process by buying a registrar. How can abuse of
this loophole be stopped?

*Proxy registrations* There needs to be an examination of proxy
registrations in light of difficulties faced in registrar data recovery.
What is the balance between privacy and disclosure?

*Reseller liability under RAA* What tools are needed to ensure better
accountability by resellers to registrants?

*Registrar data escrow* What data needs to be escrowed? If implementation
needs to move faster, greater resource allocation is required. What level of
resourcing is necessary?

*Clarification of ICANN's responsibilities and the options available to
registrants* ICANN recently posted a guide for registrants on its website
but additional consumer options (outside ICANN) should be identified for and
provided to registrants. Is there a need for a new entity to assist
customers and intervene on behalf of their concerns?

"All ICANN stakeholders need to be involved in this debate. But in
particular I would like to see registrars and registrants actively engaged
in the discussion," Dr Twomey said. "It is in their interests to make sure
that poor practice is driven from the process and that the protection of
registrants is increased."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/private/registrants-rights_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070725/08cfcfef/attachment.html>