Beijing and Policy Discussion - and Verisign
Hi Fouad - and others Actually, the more immediate issue for APRALO - and ALAC (and ICANN for that matter) - and maybe something to put upfront in the Multi stakeholder discussion - is the letter from Verisign to ICANN that it will not cooperate with the Compliance audit of registries in relation to the .net registry. See http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/kane-to-serad-et-al-08jan13-en Arguably, since this is only about Verisign's agreement in relation to the .net registry, all is not lost since, arguably, the registries handling .net domain names for Verisign are covered by the RAA (as opposed to the ICANN-Verisign contract on .net) so the Whois data held should be accurate as required under the RAA ( but then we have already drawn attention to the deficiencies in that contract - specifically clause 3.7.8) I haven't had time to go through the .net contract in detail, but I think we can be reasonably sure that Verisign lawyers have been through in great detail and probably are right. So the big question is what Verisign's refusal to comply with the Compliance audit (although they do say they are happy to cooperate) means for Whois data accuracy. Happy reading Holly
Yes indeed one of the topics for discussions! Fouad Bajwa On Jan 13, 2013 8:31 AM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Hi Fouad - and others
Actually, the more immediate issue for APRALO - and ALAC (and ICANN for that matter) - and maybe something to put upfront in the Multi stakeholder discussion - is the letter from Verisign to ICANN that it will not cooperate with the Compliance audit of registries in relation to the .net registry. See http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/kane-to-serad-et-al-08jan13-en
Arguably, since this is only about Verisign's agreement in relation to the .net registry, all is not lost since, arguably, the registries handling .net domain names for Verisign are covered by the RAA (as opposed to the ICANN-Verisign contract on .net) so the Whois data held should be accurate as required under the RAA ( but then we have already drawn attention to the deficiencies in that contract - specifically clause 3.7.8)
I haven't had time to go through the .net contract in detail, but I think we can be reasonably sure that Verisign lawyers have been through in great detail and probably are right. So the big question is what Verisign's refusal to comply with the Compliance audit (although they do say they are happy to cooperate) means for Whois data accuracy.
Happy reading
Holly
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>wrote:
Arguably, since this is only about Verisign's agreement in relation to the .net registry, all is not lost since, arguably, the registries handling .net domain names for Verisign are covered by the RAA (as opposed to the ICANN-Verisign contract on .net) so the Whois data held should be accurate as required under the RAA ( but then we have already drawn attention to the deficiencies in that contract - specifically clause 3.7.8)
Looks like like a very legalistic corporate response to the changing face of ICANN Compliance; "we will do only what we are contractually obliged"... OK, makes sense. Put the onus on ICANN to get the contracts right then! ......following the logic and since .net is a "thin" registry, I think you meant to say registrars here, no? - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Yes Carlton - I did mean registrars. Sorry. And I really don't have a problem with companies acting in their own best interests within the law. The really disappointing thing is that the big initiative by Compliance for a complete audit of all registries and registrars was launched without someone in Compliance making sure they could do it! It is a bit of egg on their face that they (and ICANN didn't need) Holly On 14/01/2013, at 4:21 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Arguably, since this is only about Verisign's agreement in relation to the .net registry, all is not lost since, arguably, the registries handling .net domain names for Verisign are covered by the RAA (as opposed to the ICANN-Verisign contract on .net) so the Whois data held should be accurate as required under the RAA ( but then we have already drawn attention to the deficiencies in that contract - specifically clause 3.7.8)
Looks like like a very legalistic corporate response to the changing face of ICANN Compliance; "we will do only what we are contractually obliged"... OK, makes sense. Put the onus on ICANN to get the contracts right then!
......following the logic and since .net is a "thin" registry, I think you meant to say registrars here, no?
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
Hi, Holly, why don't we put "Compliance" into our MS discussion agenda then? It involves users' interests (at-large/civil society), law enforcement (government), ICANN-registrar contractual relation (private sectors). It is perfect for multi-stakeholder discussion. More tangible actually to users than ITU issues, IMHO. Hong On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>wrote:
Yes Carlton - I did mean registrars. Sorry. And I really don't have a problem with companies acting in their own best interests within the law. The really disappointing thing is that the big initiative by Compliance for a complete audit of all registries and registrars was launched without someone in Compliance making sure they could do it! It is a bit of egg on their face that they (and ICANN didn't need)
Holly On 14/01/2013, at 4:21 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Holly Raiche <
h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Arguably, since this is only about Verisign's agreement in relation to the .net registry, all is not lost since, arguably, the registries handling .net domain names for Verisign are covered by the RAA (as opposed to the ICANN-Verisign contract on .net) so the Whois data held should be accurate as required under the RAA ( but then we have already drawn attention to the deficiencies in that contract - specifically clause 3.7.8)
Looks like like a very legalistic corporate response to the changing face of ICANN Compliance; "we will do only what we are contractually obliged"... OK, makes sense. Put the onus on ICANN to get the contracts right then!
......following the logic and since .net is a "thin" registry, I think you meant to say registrars here, no?
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Fouad Bajwa -
Holly Raiche -
Hong Xue