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.icann.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