Thanks Beau, A few points of question:
ICANN should require standardized Acceptable Use Policy in registration agreements to address criminal fraud, when this directly affects the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.
I believe it is not ICANN's or registrars' role to address criminal activity, beyond not knowingly aiding it.
Enforce and make public the results of dispute mechanisms in place that obligate registrars to facilitate enforcement of abusive registration policies, such as the UDRP.
Without endorsing any of those dispute resolution policies, I think transparency about their effects is useful. ICANN, rather than the registrars, should be responsible for the enforcement and disclosure, though. I would still prefer to see concrete information-forcing mechanisms, e.g., requiring prominent notification of deviations from a standard set of contract terms. Market competition only works when consumers know they are making a choice and understand the terms of the choice. Finally, I'll repeat my call for third-party beneficiary status for the affected public. Thanks, --Wendy Brendler, Beau wrote:
Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim Cole a couple of weeks ago.
As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a statement as possible regarding the user community's concerns.
The document is brief, and in two parts: The first part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied from "Section F" of the summary document (you can find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing page here: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa) Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and language in here from his own public comment document. I hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this.
The second part revisits some of the initial comments made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable at this point.
If you have anything to add, please do so! This represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of August, and it's here.
Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this together, so please send any additions or comments to this list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the final.
**************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED
**************************************************************************** ********
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/