[Registrants-rights] THEY TOOK IT DOWN!
Garth Bruen at Knujon.com
gbruen at knujon.com
Thu Jun 21 00:05:10 UTC 2012
The issues being discussed are of concern of under the current contract.
Also, the fixes to 3.7.8 being discussed are not in the proposed contract.
--------------------------------------------------
From: ""Michele Neylon :: Blacknight"" <michele at blacknight.ie>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:48 PM
To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>; "Holly Raiche"
<h.raiche at internode.on.net>
Cc: "JJS" <jjs.global at gmail.com>; "Darlene Thompson" <DThompson1 at gov.nu.ca>;
<registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Registrants-rights] THEY TOOK IT DOWN!
> Obvious question from me ..
>
> Why are you looking at the wording of the 2009 contract?
>
> Shouldn't you be looking at the proposed wording as posted by ICANN
> earlier this month? ie.:
>
> http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-draft-2012-raa-03jun12-en.pdf
>
> Or did I miss something?
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://mneylon.tel/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
> Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
> ________________________________________
> From: registrants-rights-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [registrants-rights-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Olivier
> MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com]
> Sent: 21 June 2012 00:43
> To: Holly Raiche
> Cc: JJS; Darlene Thompson; <registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Registrants-rights] THEY TOOK IT DOWN!
>
> Hello all,
>
> happy to see discussion going on with regards to this subject. However I
> wish to make a point that whilst Maguy Serad & Contractual Compliance
> can do something about her every day operations, any structural
> amendments or amendments to the mandate of ICANN compliance is a Board
> matter.
> So a change to 3.7.8 will not be effected by Compliance. This is
> something which the ALAC will need to add in its statement to the Board.
> I therefore suggest that the ALAC make use of all of the answers we can
> get from compliance, to build the case that will be sent to the Board.
> The aim, of course, is to help Maguy and her team overcome the current
> limitations compliance has.
>
> Also, and I do not know whether I have shared this with all of you yet,
> but I have discussed the limitations of compliance as it is currently
> defined, with some GAC members whilst at the EuroDIG conference in
> Stockholm last week and was told that the GAC is also currently looking
> at future needs for structural changes re: compliance. I gather that the
> forthcoming ALAC meeting with the GAC will make use of the current issue
> to make its point on an example subject the GAC and the ALAC could
> collaborate on.
> Warmest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 21/06/2012 01:28, Holly Raiche wrote :
>> Hi Carlton (and everyone)
>>
>> The third slide that you should have must be the change that we want -
>> i.e., change 3.7.8 from something that uses the term 'reasonable' and
>> has holes that one can drive a truck through to something better -
>> which is where the RAA group comes in.
>>
>> The existing wording of the clause (for those who have not memorised
>> it) is:
>>
>> /3.7.8 Registrar shall abide by any specifications or policies
>> established according to Section 4 requiring reasonable and
>> commercially practicable (a) verification, at the time of
>> registration, of contact information associated with a Registered Name
>> sponsored by Registrar or (b) periodic re-verification of such
>> information. Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an
>> inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a Registered
>> Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that
>> claimed inaccuracy. In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate
>> contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it
>> shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy./
>>
>> As the chart Garth still has shows, that is exactly what ICANN did -
>> and it's all they have to do. So the problem is not that they did
>> nothing. The problem is that they did what they should have (a
>> minimum, I admit) And it did not result in compliance
>>
>> So the obligation on us is to say that this clause is not enough
>> because, in the end, it does not require compliance - only
>> reasonableness.
>>
>> The really useful presentation at Costa Rica was a session on what is
>> meant by accuracy. It can range from simply ensuring that all the
>> blank spaces are filled, through checking to see that the information
>> is, at least, possible (i.e., such a street, suburb,country and
>> phone/email address exists/actually works) through to actually
>> verifying each detail. For the basic checking, there is almost no
>> cost involved - and that is what should happen at a minimum. (and from
>> the links Garth sent, this would address at least some of the problems
>> - if an email address does not resolve, then it is inaccurate - and
>> ICANN should then be required to insist on action.)
>>
>> So we have two choices: either define what is 'reasonable' in the
>> context - and if those steps are not taken, then non-compliance is
>> established - OR - simply delete the words reasonable from the clause.
>>
>> Se everyone soon
>>
>> Holly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21/06/2012, at 5:22 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>>
>>> Well I never!
>>>
>>> FWIW, I'm volunteering to lead the charge here. I will make two
>>> slides; one of the flowchart page as it was and another as is. Then
>>> I will innocently ask the question, what happened here? After that,
>>> I will defer to JJS to use this as springboard push towards future
>>> as per R3.
>>>
>>> - Carlton
>>>
>>> ==============================
>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
>>> =============================
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com
>>> <http://Knujon.com> <gbruen at knujon.com <mailto:gbruen at knujon.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "coming soon"
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/flowchart
>>>
>>> Of course, I never throw anything away:
>>> http://www.knujon.com/compliance-flowchart.gif
>>>
>>> Now you all have another question to ask in the meeting...
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Carlton Samuels <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 18, 2012 1:15 PM
>>> *To:* Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <mailto:gbruen at knujon.com>
>>> *Cc:* Beau Brendler <mailto:beaubrendler at earthlink.net> ; Evan
>>> Leibovitch <mailto:evan at telly.org> ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>> <mailto:ocl at gih.com> ; JJS <mailto:jjs.global at gmail.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: An exercise, RE: compliance
>>>
>>> Good Lord, there is NO enforcement intimated here!!
>>>
>>> If nothing else, this is the smoking gun.
>>>
>>> Great job, Garth!!
>>>
>>> I volunteer to make the case using this evidence.
>>>
>>> - Carlton
>>>
>>> ==============================
>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799 <tel:876-818-1799>
>>> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
>>> =============================
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com
>>> <http://Knujon.com> <gbruen at knujon.com
>>> <mailto:gbruen at knujon.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I'd like you to take a look at this ICANN flowchart entitled
>>> "ICANN Compliance Program for Registries and Registrars"
>>>
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/flowchart
>>> First, run through the flow a few times in your mind. What
>>> does Compliance REALLY do according to this chart?
>>>
>>> Second, run through the flow with the specific hypothetical
>>> of a contracted party who is in breach of the contract.
>>>
>>> There are only three paths in this flow. 1) the complaint is
>>> dismissed out of hand by Compliance, 2) the complaint is
>>> "resolved" with the contracted party, OR 3) there is an
>>> endless loop of data collection from the complainant.
>>>
>>> There is no enforcement avenue in this scheme, it is not part
>>> of their function.
>>>
>>> If one takes this flowchart to be true, the function of
>>> Compliance is to throw complaints away or place them in a
>>> holding pattern of paper shuffling. This is not an outside
>>> evaluation of the process, this is ICANN's own presentation.
>>>
>>> Something to think about!
>>>
>>> -Garth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Registrants-rights mailing list
> Registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
>
> RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/RAA-Policy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Registrants-rights mailing list
> Registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
>
> RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/RAA-Policy
>
More information about the Registrants-rights
mailing list