[AFRI-Discuss] [NA-Discuss] ICANN Announcement: Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must Be Reviewed

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Mar 22 03:52:44 EDT 2007

This is an important issue for the ALAC in 
particular and the overall At-Large community to 
weigh in on. As the announcement makes clear, it 
is the "registrant" who pays the price for 
problems in this area. Larger registrants have 
money to fight problems with lawyers. The 
individual registrant is left on their own, and 
has the much to gain by ICANN getting things in order related to the RAA.


At 21/03/2007 03:16 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>The announcement below should be of interest in the context of the
>resolution being discussed by the community. The link to this item is
>at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21mar07.htm.
>The list of questions may incorporate some questions which would be
>worthy of cross-incorporation into the resolution of the community -
>just a thought.
>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.”
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Draft MoU with ICANN:
>Draft Operating Principles:

More information about the AFRI-Discuss mailing list