Going to bring this up on today's NARALO call, Verisign can't really be faulted for this stance. I think the issue is that ICANN's "self-policing" model for contracted parties is and should be dead. There is no room for "trust" in any expectation that the contracted parties (or ICANN) will do what they have signed-on to do let alone something they're not actually held to. -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:58 PM To: Holly Raiche; Whois-WG; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois Holly, I have no specific knowledge of this issue (and have not participated in any of the associated sessions at the last ICANN meeting), but from the wording of the letter and having looked at the contracts, I think the issue is that for the .net agreement (signed 11 July 2011), there is simply no provision for contractual compliance audits. The .com agreemnet signed last December has a specific and clear provision allowing such audits (http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/com/agreement-01dec12-e n.htm - Section 3.4 Contractual and Operational Compliance Audits). So I suspect it is an issue of a company refusing to be audited without a contractual basis for it, since presumably that would set a precedent and possibly open them up to liabilities that they would otherwise not face - something a public company is typically reluctant to do. But I would be happy to have someone with real legal knowledge or corporate experience chime in if I am wrong. But if I am right, it is yet another example of an ICANN contract that was signed without having the real teeth in it that we need. Alan At 12/01/2013 03:01 AM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Everyone
I"m not sure if you all have caught up with the latest - Verisign's refusal to participate in the audi program! I'm not sure I am happy to have our concerns about the enforceability of the RAA proven right. But is there any point to an audit that does not include Verisign!?
Is this something we should respond to - at least to say that the RAA must be changed, and that an audit - to have any vaalidity at all - must include Verigisn
Holly
http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/kane-to-serad-et-al-08jan1 3-en
On 11/01/2013, at 3:05 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Thanks Carlton. Can you or staff provide URLs??
Alan
At 10/01/2013 10:52 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Add the URLs to previous ALAC WHOIS Statements and its good to go.
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee +(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)