Forwarded on behalf of Ron Sherwood. ------ Forwarded Message From: Ron Sherwood <ron@vitechnicalservices.com> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 03:37:01 -0800 To: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek@icann.org> Subject: ALAC Regisrar Compliance concerns / answers Dear Gabi: Please distribute this report to ccNSO Councilors. Thank you, Ron Sherwood ALAC Liaison ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compliance Staff response to questions posed during ALAC Policy Discussion Part 1 Meeting As requested during the Compliance staff briefing that took place in the ALAC Policy Discussion Part I meeting held 7 December 2010, please find below the written answers to questions that were posed in the Adobe Connect room. ** Q: How many new compliance officers are planned to be added during the next calendar year? A: 3 but we have plans to adequately staff the department to support the new gLTD program. Q: The latest draft terms and conditions governing registrar accreditation applications still seem to allow for the accreditation of shell corporations. Why is ICANN continuing to allow this practice? A: It is our understanding that there is no policy that prohibits this practice. If the community wishes to adopt such a policy, staff will follow it. Q: Section 3.16 of the RAA requires registrars to provide on their web sites accurate contact details, including a valid email and mailing address. Is this being audited? A: It is ICANN's current practice that prior to renewal, ICANN informs registrars of this new requirement and checks registrars' websites for compliance as part of the renewal process. In addition, ICANN is planning to incorporate website checks into its 2011 registrar audit schedule. Q: Onlinenic was ordered to pay $33 million for cybersquatting. Why is this cybersquatter still an accredited registrar? A: ICANN was aware of the judgment, but the matter was subsequently settled between the parties. ICANN staff engaged in numerous correspondence and discussions with OnlineNIC's attorneys and staff when considering its renewal application. Based on the facts and materials available to ICANN at the time, we did not believe that there were grounds for denying its renewal application pursuant to Section 5.4 of the RAA: 5.4 Term of Agreement; Renewal; Right to Substitute Updated Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective on the Effective Date and shall have an initial term running until the Expiration Date, unless sooner terminated. Thereafter, if Registrar seeks to continue its accreditation, it may apply for renewed accreditation, and shall be entitled to renewal provided it meets the ICANN-adopted specification or policy on accreditation criteria then in effect, is in compliance with its obligations under this Agreement, as it may be amended, and agrees to be bound by terms and conditions of the then-current Registrar accreditation agreement (which may differ from those of this Agreement) that ICANN adopts in accordance with Subsection 2.3 and Subsection 4.3. ICANN continues to closely monitor OnlineNIC's registration practices as well as its compliance with all RAA requirements. The fact that OnlineNIC is now under the 2009 RAA means more enforcement tools would be available to ICANN if OnlineNIC is found to be non-compliant with its RAA obligations. We believe this is a good thing. - Compliance Staff, 22 December 2010 ------ End of Forwarded Message