I am reminded by Kerry's comments of my involvement in negotiations regarding the RAA <http://icannwiki.com/index.php/RAA> that were taking place about five or so years ago, before I was on the ALAC. I recall that Beau Brendler, who WAS at that time on the ALAC, was involved with me in trying to embed an assertion of registrants rights into the RAA. This happened at one meeting -- I believe it was this one <http://sel.icann.org/node/7372>, held during the Seoul ICANN meeting in 2009, which became a kind of verbal firing squad. A room full or registries and registrars on one side, Beau and me on the other, taking what I can best rexcall as a relentless attack. How DARE we try to affect the business models of registrars?!?! Though we had come to the meeting to simply explore the idea, Beau and I were put on the spot to indicate EXACTLY what kind of rights we had in mind. Over a matter of a few minutes, pressed for time, I came up with a list that I thought was a reasonable first stab, intended to be later expanded and reworded but at least giving an idea of what we were hoping for. That list, preserved here <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/raa+wg+a+workspace+for+aspiratio...>, asserted that a registrant has the right to - have accurate, current and complete contact and locative information regarding their registrar - be the sole entity capable of asserting and changing ownership information for their domain - have ample opportunity to renew their existing domain(s) at the same rates as new domains - protect their trade name against unauthorized use - refuse the transfer of their personal information to unauthorized bodies - expect ICANN to enforce its agreements with registrars We didn't think there was anything really contentious in that list. Nonetheless, it was dismissed by the registrars and registries in the room as out of the scope, and that while the ALAC could do whatever it wanted with this "aspirational set of rights" they would never find their way into the RAA. We went for support elsewhere amongst registrant constituencies in the GNSO but found no takers -- the commercial side was obsessed with protecting trademarks and the non-commercial side obsessed with protecting anonymity. Not having found any partners to fight for something that wasn't even really within ALAC's remit, Beau and I eventually gave up on it (Beau eventually gave up on ICANN), and only scant records exist <http://nbo.icann.org/node/8896> to verify that the effort ever existed. So I hear you, Kerry. ICANN has served its vested interests well, and the rest are left to fend for themselves. Sell as many domains as possible and let the consequences sort themselves out later. (Such is the mantra of the current gTLD expansion as well.) But this is why I focus on the end user side of things. While I feel for the small business registrant that has been sideswiped by consultants and agents (and have rescued a few of them myself!), in this forum I am most mindful of the end user. Registrants have their own designated champions within ICANN; if they can't do the job we can't fight their battles for them. We can barely fight our own. The core point of this thread, the suspension issue and the ALAC position -- is that domains must have clear contact information. Kerry's comments that this is necessary both in the case of abuse *by* a registrant and abuse *of* a registrant. - Evan