[RAA-WG] Discussion: Registrar Accreditation Policy

[Jeff Williams]

Dr. Dierker and all,

  I am a bit confused.  How are your remarks relevant to the ?'s
RJ posed Dr. Dierker?  And yes, some of the illegitimate At Large
members are registrants.  Registrants are users also, btw.  However
as you yourself are not a registrant, of course your interests in
strictly
registrant related issues vis a vie RAA contracts are largely related
to the user to registrant relationship which is almost nil.

  However I find that aspect inconsistent with the smooth running of the

Internet, but not the DNS.  So this requires a more than working
knowledge of how the DNS works and how the Internet works
at a very detailed level.  Of course I know you Dr. Dierker, do
not possess that level of understanding and/or knowledge, yet
I believe you do recognize that if a web site is not available for
some reason, or is not functioning as it did the last time you visited
it, something is amiss.  Hence in a very basic way, the relationship
of user and/or to registrant sometimes works and is to this extent,
related and important.  Hence why this forum is under the
"At Large" umbrella perhaps.  Another good reason this forum
is under the "At Large" umbrella is there is no Independent
Registrant Constituency as many believe there should have been
long ago.  Ergo, RJ's consideration which has been long known
and significantly ignored by the ICANN Bod and staff, that
registrants should be driving, with user input that is relevant,
what provisions in the existing RAA contracts need revising
and or strengthening, and how as well as whom, will enforce
those revised and strengthen provisions.

  So my answers to RJ's very simple good ?'s are, no, yes,
the registrants should be driving this effort, registrants have
no rights what so ever right now, and ICANN does
not need to encourage registrar rating as there are already
independent organizations already doing so.

What is and always has been missing in the RAA's is enforceable
existing provisions, stronger additional provisions which protect
registrants and in turn, users, and viable, fair, but strong
enforcement and a independent Registry watchdog organization.
Instead ICANN relied on Self Regulation and the current milk
toast RAA's reflect that very clearly.

However oversight is what the GNSO was supposed to be doing all
along as part of their duties.  However they have failed terribly in
that and other duties.  The history shows the failures of  the GNSO are
largely due to bad structure, related processes, a significant
enamerism for politically correct discourse and other marketing
related dogma, and a loss of consideration and respect for users
and registrants as a result.  So as my friend Dan Swanson has
says, You can't send a duck to eagle school.
See:
http://www.walkthetalk.com/cant-send-duck-eagle-school-p-248.html?SRC=WPOIDUCK&ref=64

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    Is the assumption being made that; Since the wg is under an at
> large umbrella the interests of the registrants are being met.? I
> think this is probably an inaccurate concept. But certainly there are
> those who know more on this subject.
>
>   Eric
>
> "RJGlass | America at Large" <jipshida at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   In response:
>
>   http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21mar07.htm
>
> 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?
>
>
>   - It is an agreement, and therefore should be complied to.  In order
> to protect registrants, a registrant's viewpoint should be used when
> compiling such a document.
>
>
>
>   - There needs to be such issues raised as: where does the registrant
> fit into the matter? what rights does the registrant have? what
> recoursive acion do registrants have?  These matters should further be
> discussed and acted upon.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>   - Any rating system undermines the competitive nature of the market
> unless done so by an independent party.  There should, however be a
> rating system for compliance.  Should a registrar fall out of
> compliance, ICANN should require corrective action within a short
> timeframe or revoke the accreditation.  I suggest also that penalties
> in the way of fines be impletmented for noncompliance.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>   - Each registrar should be audited independently.  If there is
> common ownership, and each registrar encounters problems, the
> recoursive action should be amplified to consider each registrar
> independent.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>   - Yes compliance tools are needed.  These should include: Audits,
> fines, revocation of accreditation.  A Task Force should be assembled
> to deal with these situations quickly and efficiently.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>   - Yes, transfer policy needs reformed.  Registrants should have a
> quasi-alternative, meaning what is now should be changed in a way
> making it easier, quicker, and more reliable for the process of
> transferring domains among registrars.  I don't think it takes another
> beaurocracy to do this, it just takes a more efficient process.  The
> primary issues are: identifying the registrant as true as such,
> alerting the losing registrar to release the domain(s), and ensuring
> timely delivery to the incoming registrar.  The EPP codes are an
> improvement over the past methods, but more efficiency and a common
> system between registrars so registrants are not confused should be
> more looked into.
>
> 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?
>
>   - This should be a portion of an annual audit performed by ICANN for
> each registrar.  What skills and what standards of performance?  These
> points should be further discussed.  However, ICANN certainly spends
> more time with the respective registrars than with any other portion
> of the market, so getting everyone on the same page should not prove
> difficult.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>   - I don't think the accreditations should be permitted to be
> purchased.  If a registrar goes away, there should be an internal
> method of dealing with this matter.  If a new company wants to become
> a registrar, then they should adhere to the same principles and
> application process.  Possibly an alternative resolution would be the
> ability to sell to another existing registrar.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>   - There is no balance between privacy and disclosure, they are
> opposites.  What we should examine is what data is required to perform
> certain tasks.  I do not agree with WHOIS being publicly disclosed.
> There should be some element of disclosure, but not to the extent of
> publicly available data.  There should be some element of privacy, but
> not to the extent that even the designated registrar doesn't know who
> the registrant is.  The registrar alone should have the opportunity to
> maintain the data that is required, sharing only the peices that are
> required for operation of the DNS.  The registrant data should be kept
> confidential to the extent practical.
>
> Reseller liability under RAA
>
>   What tools are needed to ensure better accountability by resellers
> to registrants?
>
>
>
>   - This is a touchy subject because then it becomes a contract
> betweeen a reseller and the registrant.  Normally the registrant
> handles most of the backend and should be relied upon to do so.  The
> reseller should be better able to hold the registrar accountable.  The
> reseller's accountability is fairly limited to marketing, customer
> acquisition, and possibly customer service.  Resellers should be able
> to move their accounts collectively to other registrars.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>   - All necessary data for the continued stability of the DNS.
>
> 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?
>
>   - There should be a task force for registrant matters outside the
> UDRP.  Meaning, a place for registrants to go where matters could be
> handled expiditiously should a registrar not meet its obligations.
>
>   Randy Glass
>   A at L
> _______________________________________________
> RAA-WG mailing list
> RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org
> mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> RAA WG Online:
> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations
>
>
>
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827