ICANN Announcement: Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must Be Reviewed
The announcement below should be of interest in the context of the resolution being discussed by the community. The link to this item is at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21mar07.htm. The list of questions may incorporate some questions which would be worthy of cross-incorporation into the resolution of the community - just a thought. --- Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must be Reviewed 21 March 2007 President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey today called for major review of ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA) and the Accreditation process. “What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA” he said. “This is going to be a key debate at our Lisbon meeting scheduled for 26 - 30 March 2007. There must be clear decisions made on changes. As a community we cannot put this off.” “ICANN introduced competition to the domain name market in 1998. Back then there was one registrar. There are now over 865. That’s a good thing because it has made domain names cheaper and offered more choice. But the RAA was designed and signed when the domain name market was much smaller. The market now supports about 70 million generic TLD names and is growing.” Dr Twomey said. “Registrants suffer most from weaknesses in the RAA and I want to make sure that ICANN’s accreditation process and our agreement gives us the ability to respond more strongly and flexibly in the future” he said. “What is presently happening with RegisterFly makes it clear that there are also some problems with proxy registrations. Specifically, proxy registrations are available as a choice, but people who have them have great difficulties getting access to their data and having their domain name transferred where a registrar is uncooperative or has other problems with transfer. ICANN has had difficulty accessing this data too,” Dr Twomey said. “We need to expedite data escrow. There has been a long and detailed discussion and much interaction between ICANN staff and registrars on this issue. But we need to reach a conclusion. Recent events and the Lisbon meeting present that opportunity. There are resource implications and useage rules that need to be discussed among the ICANN community. I look forward to the continuing efforts and collaboration of registrars with ICANN in that regard ” he said. “Registrants clearly want ICANN to have more capacity to access data on their behalf if there are significant problems with their registrar. There is a need for better enforcement mechanisms and an ability for ICANN to intervene more quickly if a registrar fails or is engaged in damaging business practice” he added. “There’s also no way that registrants can measure the performance of registrars in any independent comparative way. That should be encouraged” Dr Twomey said. “The vast majority of ICANN’s accredited registrars offer high levels of service and integrity. But as we have seen, there is the risk that poorly performing registrars can hurt registrants very significantly. If the domain name industry wants to remain community self – regulating as it has been until now we need to put in place further sensible and practical measures to protect registrants” he noted. Dr Twomey said he would like to see the following issues included in any discussion: Purpose of Register Accreditation Policy and Agreement What is the primary purpose of the Registration Accreditation Agreement? Is it a compliance tool? If so how can it be strengthened to protect registrants? Rating of Registrars How should ICANN and/or the registrar constituency encourage a system that rates registrars according to customer service and performance and should this be available to registrants? Affiliated Registrars / Group ownership Affiliated registrars have common ownership or control. What is the best mechanism for ICANN to hold affiliated registrars accountable for an affiliate’s actions? Additional compliance enforcement tools Stronger compliance tools need to be included in any reform to the RAA. What are those tools? Do they encompass liquidated damages? Should registrars be able to be suspended more readily? Are there other options? What are the mechanisms that allow such options to be enforced quickly? Transfer policy What elements of the transfer policy need to be reformed? Should registrants have an alternative to their current registrar for the issuing of authcodes and the unlocking of them? Should ICANN or another entity be able to do this? Registrar operator skill testing How is it possible to assess registrar skills and to train registrars to a common standard of performance upon which registrants can rely? Accreditation by purchase It is possible for companies to ‘avoid’ accreditation application process by buying a registrar. How can abuse of this loophole be stopped? Proxy registrations There needs to be an examination of proxy registrations in light of difficulties faced in registrar data recovery. What is the balance between privacy and disclosure? Reseller liability under RAA What tools are needed to ensure better accountability by resellers to registrants? Registrar data escrow What data needs to be escrowed? If implementation needs to move faster, greater resource allocation is required. What level of resourcing is necessary? Clarification of ICANN's responsibilities and the options available to registrants ICANN recently posted a guide for registrants on its website but additional consumer options (outside ICANN) should be identified for and provided to registrants. Is there a need for a new entity to assist customers and intervene on behalf of their concerns? “All ICANN stakeholders need to be involved in this debate. But in particular I would like to see registrars and registrants actively engaged in the discussion,” Dr Twomey said. “It is in their interests to make sure that poor practice is driven from the process and that the protection of registrants is increased.”
This is an important issue for the ALAC in particular and the overall At-Large community to weigh in on. As the announcement makes clear, it is the "registrant" who pays the price for problems in this area. Larger registrants have money to fight problems with lawyers. The individual registrant is left on their own, and has the much to gain by ICANN getting things in order related to the RAA. Alan At 21/03/2007 03:16 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
The announcement below should be of interest in the context of the resolution being discussed by the community. The link to this item is at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21mar07.htm.
The list of questions may incorporate some questions which would be worthy of cross-incorporation into the resolution of the community - just a thought.
---
Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must be Reviewed
21 March 2007
President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey today called for major review of ICANNs Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA) and the Accreditation process.
What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA he said. This is going to be a key debate at our Lisbon meeting scheduled for 26 - 30 March 2007. There must be clear decisions made on changes. As a community we cannot put this off.
ICANN introduced competition to the domain name market in 1998. Back then there was one registrar. There are now over 865. Thats a good thing because it has made domain names cheaper and offered more choice. But the RAA was designed and signed when the domain name market was much smaller. The market now supports about 70 million generic TLD names and is growing. Dr Twomey said.
Registrants suffer most from weaknesses in the RAA and I want to make sure that ICANNs accreditation process and our agreement gives us the ability to respond more strongly and flexibly in the future he said.
What is presently happening with RegisterFly makes it clear that there are also some problems with proxy registrations. Specifically, proxy registrations are available as a choice, but people who have them have great difficulties getting access to their data and having their domain name transferred where a registrar is uncooperative or has other problems with transfer. ICANN has had difficulty accessing this data too, Dr Twomey said.
We need to expedite data escrow. There has been a long and detailed discussion and much interaction between ICANN staff and registrars on this issue. But we need to reach a conclusion. Recent events and the Lisbon meeting present that opportunity. There are resource implications and useage rules that need to be discussed among the ICANN community. I look forward to the continuing efforts and collaboration of registrars with ICANN in that regard he said.
Registrants clearly want ICANN to have more capacity to access data on their behalf if there are significant problems with their registrar. There is a need for better enforcement mechanisms and an ability for ICANN to intervene more quickly if a registrar fails or is engaged in damaging business practice he added.
Theres also no way that registrants can measure the performance of registrars in any independent comparative way. That should be encouraged Dr Twomey said.
The vast majority of ICANNs accredited registrars offer high levels of service and integrity. But as we have seen, there is the risk that poorly performing registrars can hurt registrants very significantly. If the domain name industry wants to remain community self regulating as it has been until now we need to put in place further sensible and practical measures to protect registrants he noted.
Dr Twomey said he would like to see the following issues included in any discussion:
Purpose of Register Accreditation Policy and Agreement
What is the primary purpose of the Registration Accreditation Agreement? Is it a compliance tool? If so how can it be strengthened to protect registrants?
Rating of Registrars
How should ICANN and/or the registrar constituency encourage a system that rates registrars according to customer service and performance and should this be available to registrants?
Affiliated Registrars / Group ownership
Affiliated registrars have common ownership or control. What is the best mechanism for ICANN to hold affiliated registrars accountable for an affiliates actions?
Additional compliance enforcement tools
Stronger compliance tools need to be included in any reform to the RAA. What are those tools? Do they encompass liquidated damages? Should registrars be able to be suspended more readily? Are there other options? What are the mechanisms that allow such options to be enforced quickly?
Transfer policy
What elements of the transfer policy need to be reformed? Should registrants have an alternative to their current registrar for the issuing of authcodes and the unlocking of them? Should ICANN or another entity be able to do this?
Registrar operator skill testing
How is it possible to assess registrar skills and to train registrars to a common standard of performance upon which registrants can rely?
Accreditation by purchase
It is possible for companies to avoid accreditation application process by buying a registrar. How can abuse of this loophole be stopped?
Proxy registrations
There needs to be an examination of proxy registrations in light of difficulties faced in registrar data recovery. What is the balance between privacy and disclosure?
Reseller liability under RAA
What tools are needed to ensure better accountability by resellers to registrants?
Registrar data escrow
What data needs to be escrowed? If implementation needs to move faster, greater resource allocation is required. What level of resourcing is necessary?
Clarification of ICANN's responsibilities and the options available to registrants
ICANN recently posted a guide for registrants on its website but additional consumer options (outside ICANN) should be identified for and provided to registrants. Is there a need for a new entity to assist customers and intervene on behalf of their concerns?
All ICANN stakeholders need to be involved in this debate. But in particular I would like to see registrars and registrants actively engaged in the discussion, Dr Twomey said. It is in their interests to make sure that poor practice is driven from the process and that the protection of registrants is increased.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey today called for major review of ICANN¹s Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA) and the Accreditation process. ³What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA² he said.
We should take care to separate the accreditation process with the content of the RAA. One of the reasons we have such robust competition at the registrar-level, with registrars now located in most all parts of the world, is that the registrar accreditation process is light-weight, relatively low cost, and predictable. If we place too many burdens on new market entrants, we may hurt the marketplace that currently provides many benefits (low cost, local registrars) to registrants. At the same time, you could certainly provide more hooks in the RAA to allow ICANN to more easily revoke accreditations and issue graduated penalties against registrars for infractions. Also, ICANN could simply start enforcing the existing escrow provisions of the RAA. The commercial failure of registrars and registries has been inevitable since ICANN was created. Now that it has happened, ICANN should be careful not to overreact to this Registerfly situation and create new regulations, processes, fees, etc. that might burden competition, increase the barriers to entry and, ultimately, hurt registrants. I would leave the accreditation process alone and focus the remedy on the existing escrow provisions and new enforcement provisions and graduated penalties in the RAA. -- Bret
Bret, I disagree. We do not have robust competition at the registrar-level (unless you define more than 500 new phantom registrars as an example of robustness), and we don't now have ICANN-accredited registrars located in most all parts of the world (unless you're refering primarily to the developed world). We should not leave the accreditation process alone. Accreditation currently calls for a demonstration of US$70,000 in working capital that indeed may have proven to be a barrier to entry to many from the developing world. Further, the accreditation process as currently detailed provides for no ICANN-initiated compliance audit prior to service commencement. Finally, it is my view that real revisions in the RAA are called for. This is not a time to merely focus on enhanced enforcement of the currently deficient RAA. best regards, Danny --- Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey today called for major review of ICANN¹s Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA) and the Accreditation process. ³What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA² he said.
We should take care to separate the accreditation process with the content of the RAA. One of the reasons we have such robust competition at the registrar-level, with registrars now located in most all parts of the world, is that the registrar accreditation process is light-weight, relatively low cost, and predictable. If we place too many burdens on new market entrants, we may hurt the marketplace that currently provides many benefits (low cost, local registrars) to registrants.
At the same time, you could certainly provide more hooks in the RAA to allow ICANN to more easily revoke accreditations and issue graduated penalties against registrars for infractions. Also, ICANN could simply start enforcing the existing escrow provisions of the RAA.
The commercial failure of registrars and registries has been inevitable since ICANN was created. Now that it has happened, ICANN should be careful not to overreact to this Registerfly situation and create new regulations, processes, fees, etc. that might burden competition, increase the barriers to entry and, ultimately, hurt registrants. I would leave the accreditation process alone and focus the remedy on the existing escrow provisions and new enforcement provisions and graduated penalties in the RAA.
-- Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
At the same time, you could certainly provide more hooks in the RAA to allow ICANN to more easily revoke accreditations and issue graduated penalties against registrars for infractions. Also, ICANN could simply start enforcing the existing escrow provisions of the RAA.
This last point is key: ICANN needs to figure out how to enforce the rules they already have before they start making up new ones. If ICANN had working escrow, they would have an effective way to discipline misbehaving or incompetent registrars by handing their customers to someone else. In the absence of escrow, only the registrar knows who the customers are in .COM and .NET, and prying the data out of a recalcitrant registrar would be a long and painful process during which the registrants can't modify their domains, and out of a failed registrar could be impossible. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
John L -
Nick Ashton-Hart