What you explain to me is that one of the director has been convicted before, if he/she has done the time, in the local justice system, then I don't think it is the role of ICANN to supplant the local justice system. The way I read 5.3.2, is that ICANN reserve the right to terminate the contract if the registrar is convicted of financial fraud, but likely ICANN will not do anything because the local court will have already decided what to do with the convicted and unlikely there will be something like forbidding to do business.... Now if in the registrar agreement they were a clause that say tat all the directors should submit a police report (regularly), and that no director should have a criminal conviction, that would be something. I agree with you there is no public benefit in enabling criminals to become registrars, but that's more like moral or ethics, and that's usually different from laws, which seems to explain to me why ICANN is not doing anything. We need tougher restrictions in the contracts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Monday, 5 October, 2009 1:22:51 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji Subject: Re: [At-Large] Registrar behaviour
ICANN is not the International justice system, or then there is clearly mission creep...
Does the registrar follow the contract and ICANN rules?
Please read section 5.3.2 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, and then tell us whether I'm asking about mission creep, or about ICANN enforcing its own rules. It might also be useful to remember that ICANN is incorporated as a tax-exempt charity (something that will not change under the new agreement), which means it is supposed to work for the public benefit. What is the public benefit in enabling criminals to be registrars? R's, John