Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a "Registrant Rights Charter<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_200...>" March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be considered; I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of this charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and responsibilities) *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its public. When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a declaration of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea what might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, I hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe Chat. (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiration... ). There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing list and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff has provided a document of this nature<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_2010...> which Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last meeting<https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_r...> chair Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer within the scope of the group. So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of what registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied at meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one would think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their policy making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in the first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a statement of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than with registrars and registries, in its development. Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is anyone else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? -- Evan Leibovitch
On 01/23/2010 06:27 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here...
It strikes me that there is a small step that can be taken that is not a "mere aspiration". (As if aspirations were not the atoms from which concrete policies are constructed.) A Charter of Registrants Rights is a nice aspiration, but wouldn't it be nice if registrants could get even the bare rights that are supposed to be given to them under the existing ICANN registrar and registry contracts? At a bare minimum all ICANN contracts with registrars and registries ought to be amended to add third party beneficiary rights provisions that recognize domain name holders as having the power to go to court to enforce contractual obligations even if ICANN fails to do so. As it stands today a registrar or registry can do horrible things to registrants, things that are clearly in violation of its contract with ICANN, and the effected domain name registrants can do no more than watch, endure, and suffer. With third party beneficiary rights registrants would have the power to take action. Yes, I know that third party beneficiary rights is a topic listed somewhere on lists of things to be discussed someday in the future, if ever. ICANN has steadfastly over the years refused even to discuss the possibility that perhaps ICANN might someday want to consider that it might add third party beneficiary rights to the contracts. The reason given by ICANN for this position is that ICANN fears that registrants might actually try to enforce their rights and that some cases might succeed and others might fail, creating a patchwork of decisions. However, it seems to me that a patchwork cloth is more protection against the cold winds of registrar misbehavior and ICANN inaction than today's nakedness. --karl--
Hi, I promised to contribute to the Charter, WG A, yet to date have contributed zero. The calls have been at times I simply cannot make (and the next call also not possible.) Still, I should have read and continued to work online. Apologies. I'll try to get up to date over the coming weeks. Adam
One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good.
So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a "Registrant Rights Charter<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_200...>" March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated.
The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be considered; I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of this charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and responsibilities) *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its public.
When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a declaration of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea what might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, I hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe Chat. (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiration... ).
There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing list and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff has provided a document of this nature<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_2010...> which Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last meeting<https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_r...> chair Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer within the scope of the group.
So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of what registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside.
Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied at meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one would think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their policy making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward.
What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in the first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a statement of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than with registrars and registries, in its development.
Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is anyone else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away?
-- Evan Leibovitch _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (3)
-
Adam Peake -
Evan Leibovitch -
Karl Auerbach