[RAA-WG] Submission, draft 2

Mon Sep 3 19:38:59 CDT 2007

Yes registrars and registries need to respect applicable privacy laws. On
the Internet, US privacy law stands no higher or lower than the privacy laws
of other countries. That ICANN is a California corporation working under the
auspices of a contract with a US governmental agency does not change this
reality, even under precepts of U.S. public or private international law, at
least IMHO. 

-----Original Message-----
From: raa-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:raa-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:41 PM
To: 'RAA WG'
Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] Submission, draft 2

Michele and all,

  I only wanted to respond to your last remark and/or observation here.

  I would agree that there indeed are not always easy ways in which to
sanction a registrar or registry for violating privacy of registrants in all
jurisdictions.
But demanding that registries and registrars especially, do follow those
laws expressly or lose ICANN accreditation immediately or within a very
short time frame can be a clause in a revised RAA for all registrars or
registries.

  The other method of addressing the jurisdictional issue regarding
enforcment might be to require all registries and registrars to abide by US
privacy laws, regulations accordingly.  But I doubt that this would be very
popular with non-US registrars or registries and especially ccTLD registries
and/or registrars that handle registrations for ccTLD registries.  

  However as registrars and registries are Accredited by ICANN via the RAA
contracts, and ICANN is a US non-profit company with oversite of the
DOC/NTIA, than those current registrars and registries whom refuse this
potential provision have their Accreditation revoked.

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.ie>
>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 10:16 PM
>To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>, Vittorio Bertola 
><vb at bertola.eu>, 'RAA WG' <RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] Submission, draft 2
>
>Just a couple of reactions to Vittorio's document and Danny's comments
>
>Hopefully they're coherent
>
>"1.1Add a clause in the RAA so to require registrars, in case of loss 
>of their accreditation for whatever reason, to promptly inform their 
>customers of such event."
>
>Danny raises concerns about this.
>
>Isn't usage of the ICANN accredited logo covered by this? ie. if you 
>lose accreditation you can no longer use the logo?
>
>"3.4 We ask that the Transfer Policy is rediscussed by the GNSO so to 
>forbid losing registrars to ask for any kind of extra fee or paperwork 
>to let registrants transfer their domain names. The entire process can 
>be streamlined so to be automated; in that way, its operational cost 
>could be so low to be covered by the registration fee, and there would 
>be no cost reason to justify specific extra fees."
>
>That may need to be qualified.
>
>In some instances the registrar may need to verify that the party 
>requesting the transfer is an authorised agent of the registrant ie. if 
>the email address has changed or contact has left an organisation.
>
>This may be covered elsewhere, but the choice of language is very 
>strong
>
>There is also the issue of some registrars treating internal trades as 
>"full" transfers and imposing a lockdown on the domains. This needs to 
>be addressed.
>
>
>
>
>"3.1.We ask that ICANN provides official translations of the transfer 
>forms and rules in a reasonable number of major languages; the 
>registrant should be able to perform the entire procedure in his/her 
>native language, if it is one of the supported ones."
>
>Excellent idea. One of the things that ICANN really needs is to get 
>away from the English only / US-centric attitude. Multilingual versions 
>of the main documents would help a lot with this
>
>Points 4.1 / 4.2 - I think the main thing here is that ICANN needs to 
>actually enforce them
>
>Eurid, for example, introduced a Code of Conduct (http://www.coc.eu/) 
>that supplements the registrar contract. Maybe ICANN could introduce a 
>similar initiative?
>
>4.4 - I'm not sure about logo abuse, but I have seen meta tag abuse in 
>the past
>
>6.1 is problematic. The main issue would be in persuading registrars 
>that it is in their own interest to encourage best practices within 
>their reseller market. Contracts are useles.
>
>6.2 - While I can appreciate the sentiment it flies in the face of logic.
>
>6.3 - I honestly don't understand that section. Are you referring back 
>to point 6.2?
>
>7.2 - This seems a bit over the top. If there are processes in place to 
>deal with registrar failure fine, but do you actually want to devote 
>resources to watching registrars? It seems a bit unreasonable.
>
>7.3 would seem to cover the spirit of 7.2 and is much saner imho
>
>9.1 This is going to cause issues no matter which way it is worded.
>
>9.2 - that is a good idea
>
>
>10.2 I like that idea. While I can appreciate Danny's point I'd have to 
>wonder if privacy laws in all jurisdictions are as strong as in others.
>Irish law, for example, protects individuals but not businesses. There 
>is no easy way to sanction a company that sells business details to 
>spammers.
>
>
>Regards
>
>Michele
>
>
>
>--
>Mr Michele Neylon
>Blacknight Solutions
>Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>http://www.blacknight.ie/
>http://blog.blacknight.ie/
>Tel. 1850 929 929
>Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>-------------------------------
>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business 
>Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>_______________________________________________
>RAA-WG mailing list
>RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.ic
>ann.org
>
>RAA WG Online: 
>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations

======= 

'Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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

_______________________________________________
RAA-WG mailing list
RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.o
rg

RAA WG Online:
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations