[At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Sep 26 13:23:04 UTC 2012
Well said, Alan. As usual, you can be counted on for further
contextualizing a matter with added historical details.
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
> Carlton, there is a lesson to be learned from the continued problems
> with item 10 (verification of both e-mail and telephone numbers), and
> I hope the Board and new CEO are paying attention. According to the
> report, registrars are now saying that they will do one but not
> both. Law enforcement wants both.
> It is worth considering how we got ourselves into this predicament.
> It is almost impossible these days to sign onto a mailing list or get
> a free id on some web site without clicking on a link in an e-mail.
> Yet apparently, you can register a domain name without such a nicety.
> If we (we being ICANN) had not ignored the issue of Whois validation
> for so long, the trivial e-mail verification would have been done for
> longer than many of us can remember. Now we are at the stage where we
> need to beg to have done what the rest of the world considers
> business as usual.
> Phone verification is a lot more costly, and it is natural that
> registrars are reluctant to make this investment, particularly as
> noted in the other document, under the current rules, where some
> registrars could avoid having to do this for up to five years, giving
> them a significant advantage.
> But if ICANN had paid even a modicom of attention to these problem long
> - we would not be negotiating just phone verification as e-mail would
> have already been addressed
> - when we VERY PAINFULLY modified the RAA in 2008/9, we ignored AGAIN
> the issue of making future contracts effective in far less than 5 years.
> Hopefully going forward, we will not make these kind of mistakes
> again. The historian Barbara Tuchman, in a book I can recommend, "The
> March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam", defines "folly" as:
> - an actions clearly contrary to the self-interest of those group
> pursuing the them;
> - carried out by a group or succession of people and not just the act
> of a single lunatic;
> - people at the time understood the error and gave valid alternatives.
> Clearly ICANN has been guilty of Folly. Perhaps we will stop. (And of
> course, At-Large should be a large part of that solution.)
> At 25/09/2012 07:40 PM, *Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >So here we are. What do we know? And, when did we know it?
> >Under the label 'Current Situation and Recent Developments' in the *RAA
> >Negotiations Update* document, it says:
> > "six additional negotiating sessions, including two all-day in-person
> >meetings held in Washington DC (one of which was attended by Governmental
> >Advisory Committee members and representatives from the law enforcement
> >representatives)...........the negotiations since Prague has largely
> >focused on the key areas of Whois verification and data retention, which
> >are part of 12 GAC/law enforcement recommendations."
> >In case you missed the significance, there is further contextualization:
> >n Prague, we highlighted four critical elements of the law enforcement
> >(1)verification / validation of Whois data;
> >(2)enhanced collection of information related to registrants (data
> >(3)clarification of registrar responsibility regarding resellers and
> >privacy/proxy services;
> >(4)creation of contacts for reports of domain name abuse.
> >The ALAC and At-Large have certainly not been mute on said 'critical
> >elements'. And while the ALAC is also on record demanding transparent
> >negotiations if only because of the pivotal role the RAA plays in
> >policy development, I personally do not have any the current information
> >regarding At-Large/ALAC dispositions at these sessions. All things being
> >equal, it appears the At-Large [and the ALAC] were treated like unloved
> >country cousins on your father's side, thrice removed.
> >I'm pleased to hear negotiations have progressed in certain areas. See the
> >Summary of Negotiations Status. Look closely at Item #10: Registrar
> >Validation of Registrant Data. Apply the stoplight status here and
> >contextualize what this means.
> >I have attached both documents for ease of access.
> >- Carlton Samuels
> > [Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG]
> >Carlton A Samuels
> >Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >From: ICANN News Alert <communications at icann.org>
> >Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM
> >Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement
> >To: carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> > [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert
> >Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
> >24 September 2012
> >In advance of the ICANN meeting in Toronto, ICANN and the Registrars are
> >posting two documents on the status of negotiations of amendments to the
> >Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Since Prague, significant
> >has been made, though certain key issues remain open. There were six
> >negotiation sessions, including a full day session with participants from
> >the Governmental Advisory Committee and representatives of law
> >As reported earlier, there is agreement in many areas, including nearly
> >law enforcement recommendations. In the two remaining recommendations
> >under discussion, ICANN and the registrars are much closer to reaching a
> >negotiated position on Whois verification and data retention.
> >On Whois verification, a framework for improving Whois accuracy has been
> >developed, however, ICANN and the registrars still have not reached
> >agreement on the number of fields that are to be verified.
> >On data retention, discussion among law enforcement representatives,
> >registrars and ICANN indicates there is agreement in principle on a
> >two-tiered retention schedule to account for differing data privacy
> >obligations. More detail on each of these items, as well as status of
> >negotiations on the other law enforcement requests, are provided in the
> >documents posted today:
> >*RAA Negotiation
> >:* A memo providing detail on the negotiations since the Prague meeting
> >providing some questions for further community input.
> >*Summary Chart of Status of
> >:* Detailed status of negotiation on each of the 12 law enforcement
> >requests, noting the remaining items remaining for discussion. Key
> >from Registrars and ICANN for additional terms in the RAA are also
> >identified at the end of the chart.
> >Because the negotiations have been focused on these key areas, ICANN and
> >the Registrars have not yet reached a fully negotiated agreement on all
> >terms and provisions within the RAA. When available, a full draft will be
> >posted for public comment. Until that time, ICANN and the Registrars
> >welcome feedback on the discussion topics identified in the summary memo
> >help inform the community discussions in Toronto. Comments can be
> >to the RAA Negotiations Status
> >Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf"
> >Content-Disposition: attachment;
> > filename="Negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf"
> >X-Attachment-Id: f_h7jn3jpl0
> >Content-Type: application/pdf;
> > name="Negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf"
> >Content-Disposition: attachment;
> > filename="Negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf"
> >X-Attachment-Id: f_h7jn3yky1
> >At-Large mailing list
> >At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> WHOIS-WG mailing list
> WHOIS-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> WHOIS WG Wiki:
More information about the At-Large