Hi Michael If you're interested, please join the AtLarge RAA working group at raa-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org. That's actually where this discussion started. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Michael Maranda [mailto:mmaranda@afcn.org] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 15:29 To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Developing accountability for registrars discussion We should go through this idea, and perhaps establish a working group? The survey is a key element. (You mention it was some of the most important money spent) We should probably start there.., how extensive or brief a survey design? What are the costs around conducting such a survey? What are our (potential, collective) means of undertaking such a survey? (Assume scenarios a) full ICANN support, b) some ICANN support, and c) no ICANN support) I think the survey itself generates a great deal of awareness of ICANN and At large, and the data gathered and disseminated are likewise part of a public education campaign. Regards, MM On 8/6/07, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
Hello, there. I wanted to make this group aware of an off-list discussion forwarded to me, which I responded to, related to the RAA evaluations and creating some sort of system of accountability for registrars. I am not in the RAA working group, and probably don't have time to be, but this group may want to contribute to this discussion or have its own here, as I think the RAA work should be of considerable interest to consumers.
Danny Younger responds to Seth Reiss and my response is last.
Beau Brendler Director, Consumer Reports WebWatch http://www.consumerwebwatch.org
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Date: 20 July 2007 18:21:49 BDT To: "Seth M. Reiss" <seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>, raa-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] Starting the discussion
Hi Seth,
Registrars have, on several occasions, attempted to create a code of conduct. Their most recent version (which dates back several years) is here:
http://www.icann-registrars.org/html_docs/CodeofConduct3.htm
The list of registrars willing to agree to this code of conduct -- zero -- is maintained here:
http://www.icann-registrars.org/listcodeofconductsubscribing.htm
One approach might be to have the registries each individually craft a code of conduct for their accredited registrars (this is what Eurid, the .eu registry operator did) -- see http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/CoC/rules_proc_en.pdf
So far, these codes rely on voluntary compliance; unfortunately, there is little actual incentive for registrars to comply.
regards, Danny
--- "Seth M. Reiss" <seth.reiss@lex-ip.com> wrote:
I like Vittorio's idea of developing a best practices industry code for registrars. Registrars can decide to comply on a voluntary basis and perhaps even undergo audits with independent companies so compliance can be checked. Registrants can decide to pay a few extra dollars to use compliant registrars and obtain the additional security. This would keep ICANN out of the policing roles, which I suspect it prefers to avoid.
Beau Brendler wrote:
This exchange was forwarded to me and I wanted to offer whatever help we can on this topic, as I think it is an important one.
Briefly, WebWatch about five years ago now developed a basic set of guidelines to "improve the credibility of Web sites," as we said at the time. We also developed several sets of category-specific guidelines (one for search engines, another for travel Web sites, another for health Web sites). We had some good success with the general guidelines, and some less measurable but notable success with the more industry-specific ones.
I wanted to briefly outline here how we did it, because I think some of the principles might be portable.
* Survey research of consumers. We did a national poll of U.S. Web users (six months experience minimum) over 18 to find out what types of characteristics of Web sites they considered "credible." We did this so that we could point to empirical data in any forthcoming campaign to get companies, Web publishers, etc., to join -- so that we didn't turn people off by saying, "we're Consumer Reports, and here's what you should do to make your Web site more credible." The guidelines are here: http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm The national poll was expensive but was probably some of the most important money we spent.
* Publication of guidelines. We used the survey research to create the guidelines, then publicized them and went directly to a number of companies, some of them Fortune 500, to get feedback.
* Compliance mechanism. We stopped short of creating a seal of approval, since our research showed that such seals tend to be much more popular among the community of sealholders than recognizable by consumers. In addition, seals can be faked, upkeep and policing is costly, etc. So we started a pledge campaign, with an online form, where companies and Web publishers could make a promise to uphold the guidelines. Our staff would then review the site, and pass it or fail it (about 90 percent of the failed sites made changes and improvements and re-pledged, and passed).
* We listed the sites on a page on our Web site (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/praise-worthy.cfm) and allow participating sites to link back to the guidelines page (not the page where their company is named). We still continue to get pledges and add company names to the list.
* We created a national advertising campaign to promote the sites that pledged, and the guidelines themselves as a sort of consumer bill of rights.
I think a similar system could be used for the registrars. Indeed, it is voluntary compliance, but the "wisdom of the masses" assists in enforcement -- we do get e-mails from consumers when they interact with a company on the compliance list that doesn't measure up. In those cases, we investigate, then publicize the investigation and the result.
The low compliance rate in the venture you describe below may be due to a number of factors, but I would guess if there were more third-party involvement it might create more incentive..
_______________________________________________ RAA-WG mailing list RAA-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org
RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations
"Whenever a single political movement corners power we find ourselves in the realm of totalitarian kitsch." -- Kundera
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.4/936 - Release Date: 8/4/2007 14:42 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.8/940 - Release Date: 8/6/2007 16:53