Stacy and all, I for one thank you for your response to Danny's inquiry, although your answer seems to be a deflection of what Danny was asking regarding the 164 breaches. When will these breaches of contract be shared with the public? It also seems that you Stacy are implying all of the breaches deal with failure to pay fees by registrars primarly. I for one could care less if ICANN got it's fees or not from any registrar as such is not a direct impact on users or registrants. I and all of our members are primarly interested in those breaches that are not fee's to ICANN related. If ICANN espouses to be open and transparent, it is very difficult given Danny's request and a host of others, that what ICANN espouses is in any reasonable way related to what ICANN practices. Ergo and again, please publish ALL 164 breaches in detail immediately. -----Original Message-----
From: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette@icann.org> Sent: May 5, 2008 4:39 PM To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Cc: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Transparency & the ICANN Contractual Compliance Newsletter
Dear Mr. Younger:
Thanks for writing me regarding your transparency concerns relative to ICANN's contractual compliance activities. Specifically, in your correspondence to me on 3 April 2008, you requested information regarding ICANN's decision not to publish breach notices referenced in ICANN's 3 April 2008 Contractual Compliance Newsletter.
ICANN has a significant interest in sharing information with the public regarding registrar noncompliance. ICANN evaluates publication of breach notices on a case by case basis, with the exception of breach notices related to failure to pay ICANN fees. We think that breach notices related to the collection of unpaid fees are an extension of our collections efforts. Such breaches are routinely cured by registrars with no tangible impact to registrants, registries or third parties. The breach notices referenced in the 3 April 2008 Contractual Compliance Newsletter concerned registrar failure to pay fees. However, the concerns you expressed in your correspondence to me and during the recent NARALO meeting have been raised with ICANN's executive management and our current practice of not publishing breach notices related to failure to pay ICANN fees is under review.
We appreciate your interest in this important matter and we encourage you to continue to provide comments to assist us in better understanding community concerns.
Sincerely,
Stacy Burnette Director Contractual Compliance ICANN (310) 301-3860
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:54 AM To: Stacy Burnette Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: RE: Transparency & the ICANN Contractual Compliance Newsletter
Dear Ms. Burnette,
Thank you for your response. We look forward to your participation on the upcoming NARALO monthly teleconference and to a frank discussion on the state of negotiations as they pertain to the planned registrar sanctions program (first described in the "Improved Contractual Compliance Enforcement Tools" proposed amendment to the RAA).
Best wishes, Danny Younger
--- Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Mr. Younger:
Thank you for writing me regarding your concerns related to transparency. ICANN is committed to transparency and accountability.
To ensure that you are provided complete information, I need additional time to respond to the questions posed below. On or before 30 April 2008, I will respond to all of the questions presented in your electronic mail message dated 3 April 2008.
Thanks for your support.
Sincerely,
Stacy Burnette Director Contractual Compliance ICANN
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:34 PM To: Stacy Burnette Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Transparency & the ICANN Contractual Compliance Newsletter
Dear Ms. Burnette,
I am appreciative of the fact that ICANN has generated this newsletter, but I have a number of concerns related to transparency.
We are told that during 2007 a total of 164 breach of contract notices were sent to registrars. While this effort is to be commended, users would assuredly want to know which registrars are in breach of contract (and for what reason) at any given point in time so that they can make informed choices regarding which registration providers to use.
Hiding this valuable information from consumers is not what I would deem to be a public service, rather, I view it as a profound disservice. While it does serve to protect the interest of registrars, it most certainly doesn't serve to properly protect the public.
May I ask why ICANN has chosen to conceal this information? Is this behavior owing to a deliberate policy decision that has been made by ICANN Staff? Does Staff intend to continue concealing registrar contract breaches at the expense of the registrant community, or can we expect this situation to change in the immediate future?
Hopefully you can help us to better understand the situation and the Staff perspective on transparency.
best regards, Danny Younger
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827