Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
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 **************************************************************************** ********
Beau, I must begin by expressing my discomfort with this situation. ICANN Staff graciously extended a courtesy to the ALAC by way of a 30-day time extension on public comments so as to properly accomodate the needs of those that have aggressively petitioned for document translations. ICANN Staff did a superlative job of providing an additional briefing session as well as translations for all of the relevant documents in a very timely fashion, yet with the deadline for comments nigh upon us we have yet to receive within this extended window for comment a single submission in any language (including English) from any other member of the ALAC, from any RALO or from any ALS. This was an opportunity for the ALAC to shine. After the devastation of the Registerfly meltdown, this was ALAC's opportunity to stand up in defense of the user interest, to aggressively act to right the myriad wrongs exposed in that travesty. But instead of setting a shining example, it looks like the ALAC has turned their back on the users, on the very registrants whose fees make possible the travel vouchers the ALAC is so keen to obtain. There are others that can now lay claim to the notion that they represent the user community: those from the Business Constituency that collaborated on a document, those from the International Trademark Association that put together a significant statement, those from the IPC for incredibly well-researched and articulated multiple submissions, those from the domainer community as represented in the efforts of the Internet Commerce Association, and last but not least the Government of the United States that submitted strong focused comments in defense of the consumer interest. They all recognized the need to stand up for the user community, to make their voices heard, to champion necessary change. Yet those that are charged with representing the user interest within ICANN, the ALAC and its gaggle of associate structures, have chosen to be mute, to engage in no discussion of the issues and to contribute nothing. Rest assured, this will be the albatross around the ALAC's neck that will mark its impending demise. Absolutely no one needs "participants" that won't "participate". Absolutely no one needs to actively fund those that will not stand up for their own constituents. That said, let's get on with the task ahead of us... My first observation would be that ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey made a promise to the community: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA." Thus far we have received the proposed revisions to the RAA but we have yet to hear the results of the comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. In a posting today, the spam mitigation firm Knujon pointed to the nefarious activities of a single registrar associated with illicit pharmaceuticals that has sponsored 48 phantom accreditations. Extending accreditations to these shell/paper companies that are formed for the express purpose of gaming the system must stop. These phantom registrars are currently being used to game the aftermarket, but as we move into the new gTLD cycle they will next be used to actively game the new gTLD landrush periods. This is simply not acceptable. As a community, we are aware of accredited registrars in North America with officers that have been convicted of mail fraud, that continue to be associated with the deceptive marketing practices employed by the notorious Domain Registry of America. We are not happy about this... Accreditation processes must be reviewed, and that review must be released for public scrutiny. We are aware of registrars that now stand as defendents in courts of law accused of cybersquatting, and yet ICANN lacks the will to suspend their accreditations. We are sick and tired of registrars that refuse to craft a Registrar Code of Conduct, and we would ask the ICANN Board to impose a long overdue Code of Conduct upon that community in much the same fashion as the Eurid Registry imposed such a code upon their registrars. We are disgusted by the fact that while organizations like auDA can responsibly put into place a registrant complaint procedure, ICANN remains intransigent on the point of third-party beneficiary clauses and has no procedures in place whatsoever to remedy legitimate registrant complaints -- this is not how a proper steward of the DNS should be behaving. We are furious that after years of discussion and hundreds upon hundreds of complaints, there has been no change whatsoever to the language of RAA section 3.7.7.2 Finally, as consumers we are astounded by the lack of a requirement that a registrar prominently post its valid email and street address on its website for contact purposes. Beau, that's it for tonight... best wishes, Danny
Thanks...we'll get to work with the stuff in the bottom half and get it to Tim Cole today. BB ________________________________________ From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:44 PM To: ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read Beau, I must begin by expressing my discomfort with this situation. ICANN Staff graciously extended a courtesy to the ALAC by way of a 30-day time extension on public comments so as to properly accomodate the needs of those that have aggressively petitioned for document translations. ICANN Staff did a superlative job of providing an additional briefing session as well as translations for all of the relevant documents in a very timely fashion, yet with the deadline for comments nigh upon us we have yet to receive within this extended window for comment a single submission in any language (including English) from any other member of the ALAC, from any RALO or from any ALS. This was an opportunity for the ALAC to shine. After the devastation of the Registerfly meltdown, this was ALAC's opportunity to stand up in defense of the user interest, to aggressively act to right the myriad wrongs exposed in that travesty. But instead of setting a shining example, it looks like the ALAC has turned their back on the users, on the very registrants whose fees make possible the travel vouchers the ALAC is so keen to obtain. There are others that can now lay claim to the notion that they represent the user community: those from the Business Constituency that collaborated on a document, those from the International Trademark Association that put together a significant statement, those from the IPC for incredibly well-researched and articulated multiple submissions, those from the domainer community as represented in the efforts of the Internet Commerce Association, and last but not least the Government of the United States that submitted strong focused comments in defense of the consumer interest. They all recognized the need to stand up for the user community, to make their voices heard, to champion necessary change. Yet those that are charged with representing the user interest within ICANN, the ALAC and its gaggle of associate structures, have chosen to be mute, to engage in no discussion of the issues and to contribute nothing. Rest assured, this will be the albatross around the ALAC's neck that will mark its impending demise. Absolutely no one needs "participants" that won't "participate". Absolutely no one needs to actively fund those that will not stand up for their own constituents. That said, let's get on with the task ahead of us... My first observation would be that ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey made a promise to the community: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA." Thus far we have received the proposed revisions to the RAA but we have yet to hear the results of the comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. In a posting today, the spam mitigation firm Knujon pointed to the nefarious activities of a single registrar associated with illicit pharmaceuticals that has sponsored 48 phantom accreditations. Extending accreditations to these shell/paper companies that are formed for the express purpose of gaming the system must stop. These phantom registrars are currently being used to game the aftermarket, but as we move into the new gTLD cycle they will next be used to actively game the new gTLD landrush periods. This is simply not acceptable. As a community, we are aware of accredited registrars in North America with officers that have been convicted of mail fraud, that continue to be associated with the deceptive marketing practices employed by the notorious Domain Registry of America. We are not happy about this... Accreditation processes must be reviewed, and that review must be released for public scrutiny. We are aware of registrars that now stand as defendents in courts of law accused of cybersquatting, and yet ICANN lacks the will to suspend their accreditations. We are sick and tired of registrars that refuse to craft a Registrar Code of Conduct, and we would ask the ICANN Board to impose a long overdue Code of Conduct upon that community in much the same fashion as the Eurid Registry imposed such a code upon their registrars. We are disgusted by the fact that while organizations like auDA can responsibly put into place a registrant complaint procedure, ICANN remains intransigent on the point of third-party beneficiary clauses and has no procedures in place whatsoever to remedy legitimate registrant complaints -- this is not how a proper steward of the DNS should be behaving. We are furious that after years of discussion and hundreds upon hundreds of complaints, there has been no change whatsoever to the language of RAA section 3.7.7.2 Finally, as consumers we are astounded by the lack of a requirement that a registrar prominently post its valid email and street address on its website for contact purposes. Beau, that's it for tonight... best wishes, Danny *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********
Dear All: You'll have seen the announcement Beau asked me to post with the draft. I reviewed the text and made a few amendments - however, I hope you will agree that these are not substantive, since they are either minor grammatical changes, or in providing URLs and information about the previous statement. I did discuss these with Beau (send him your well-wishes, he's home with a flu). On 29/08/2008 15:10, "Beau Brendler" <brenbe@consumer.org> wrote: Thanks...we'll get to work with the stuff in the bottom half and get it to Tim Cole today. BB ________________________________________ From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:44 PM To: ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read Beau, I must begin by expressing my discomfort with this situation. ICANN Staff graciously extended a courtesy to the ALAC by way of a 30-day time extension on public comments so as to properly accomodate the needs of those that have aggressively petitioned for document translations. ICANN Staff did a superlative job of providing an additional briefing session as well as translations for all of the relevant documents in a very timely fashion, yet with the deadline for comments nigh upon us we have yet to receive within this extended window for comment a single submission in any language (including English) from any other member of the ALAC, from any RALO or from any ALS. This was an opportunity for the ALAC to shine. After the devastation of the Registerfly meltdown, this was ALAC's opportunity to stand up in defense of the user interest, to aggressively act to right the myriad wrongs exposed in that travesty. But instead of setting a shining example, it looks like the ALAC has turned their back on the users, on the very registrants whose fees make possible the travel vouchers the ALAC is so keen to obtain. There are others that can now lay claim to the notion that they represent the user community: those from the Business Constituency that collaborated on a document, those from the International Trademark Association that put together a significant statement, those from the IPC for incredibly well-researched and articulated multiple submissions, those from the domainer community as represented in the efforts of the Internet Commerce Association, and last but not least the Government of the United States that submitted strong focused comments in defense of the consumer interest. They all recognized the need to stand up for the user community, to make their voices heard, to champion necessary change. Yet those that are charged with representing the user interest within ICANN, the ALAC and its gaggle of associate structures, have chosen to be mute, to engage in no discussion of the issues and to contribute nothing. Rest assured, this will be the albatross around the ALAC's neck that will mark its impending demise. Absolutely no one needs "participants" that won't "participate". Absolutely no one needs to actively fund those that will not stand up for their own constituents. That said, let's get on with the task ahead of us... My first observation would be that ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey made a promise to the community: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA." Thus far we have received the proposed revisions to the RAA but we have yet to hear the results of the comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. In a posting today, the spam mitigation firm Knujon pointed to the nefarious activities of a single registrar associated with illicit pharmaceuticals that has sponsored 48 phantom accreditations. Extending accreditations to these shell/paper companies that are formed for the express purpose of gaming the system must stop. These phantom registrars are currently being used to game the aftermarket, but as we move into the new gTLD cycle they will next be used to actively game the new gTLD landrush periods. This is simply not acceptable. As a community, we are aware of accredited registrars in North America with officers that have been convicted of mail fraud, that continue to be associated with the deceptive marketing practices employed by the notorious Domain Registry of America. We are not happy about this... Accreditation processes must be reviewed, and that review must be released for public scrutiny. We are aware of registrars that now stand as defendents in courts of law accused of cybersquatting, and yet ICANN lacks the will to suspend their accreditations. We are sick and tired of registrars that refuse to craft a Registrar Code of Conduct, and we would ask the ICANN Board to impose a long overdue Code of Conduct upon that community in much the same fashion as the Eurid Registry imposed such a code upon their registrars. We are disgusted by the fact that while organizations like auDA can responsibly put into place a registrant complaint procedure, ICANN remains intransigent on the point of third-party beneficiary clauses and has no procedures in place whatsoever to remedy legitimate registrant complaints -- this is not how a proper steward of the DNS should be behaving. We are furious that after years of discussion and hundreds upon hundreds of complaints, there has been no change whatsoever to the language of RAA section 3.7.7.2 Finally, as consumers we are astounded by the lack of a requirement that a registrar prominently post its valid email and street address on its website for contact purposes. Beau, that's it for tonight... best wishes, Danny *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** 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 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Additional comments. Late last fall a working group was put together that consisted primarily of GA-list participants: RJ Glass Vittorio Bertola Michele Neylon Hugh Dierker Debbie Garside John Levine Jacqueline Morris Lawyer Nirmol Seth Reiss Derek Smythe Jeff Williams Danny Younger This collection of individuals did what the ALAC was unwilling to do, namely, they put together a set of policy recommendations with regard to the RAA (and, of course, the ALAC was more than prepared to take credit for this contribution). Out of the 27 separate recommendations tendered, the ICANN Staff selected only one -- the weakest measure possible that had absolutely no teeth, specifically, the inclusion of a standardized description of registrant rights within the RAA. On behalf of this group let me express my outrage. All through this process we have seen public comments tendered in good faith that were cast aside by the ICANN Staff. Never before have we seen such an outpouring of specific implementable recommendations from the general public, with almost all having been discarded by ICANN Staff. The Staff Analysis of Section F of the Synthesis of Public Comments reads as if it were written by employees in bed with the registrar community. Where is the commitment to protection of the public interest? Where is the respect for the community view? When the next registrar goes bad, absconds with your money, and fails to renew your domain names what provision in the RAA will make the registrant whole? We cannot allow ICANN to get off the hook so easily. We cannot put through yet another tame comment while consumer protections are falling by the wayside with increased regularity. Who anywhere would stand for accreditations being provided to non-existent companies and shell corporations? Who anywhere would tolerate accredited entities actively engaging in cybersquatting? Folks in the ICANN organization love to prattle on about methods to deal with institutional capture... well guess what? ICANN has long been captured by the registries and registrars that exclusively feed its coffers. Whatever they want, they get and the public usually gets screwed. We've talked recently about horrible practices such as front-running. Where are the provisions in the RAA to deal with this menace? When registrars pay for multiple-year registrations and the registrar enters only a single year into the WHOIS record, what RAA provisions will ensure that the registrant is protected should the registrar go under? When a registrar reacts to a customer charge-back by changing the WHOIS record for the registrant's other registrations, what provisions in the RAA will make the registrant whole? When a registrar repeatedly nacks transfer requests and impedes the fair exercise of competition, how is this new RAA protecting the registrant? As you look through the amendments, specific registrant protections are almost non-existent. This is an insult to everyone that has actively participated in this process. The entire point of the exercise was to enhance registrant protections in the wake of the RegisterFly event. Where are those protections? Where was the ICANN consultation with consumer protection organizations? Whatever you do, don't send through the usual tepid ALAC Statement. If there ever was a time that outrage needed to be expressed , this is the moment.
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/
Thanks -- that was fast. Do you want me to forward this to Mike and tell him it represents your personal positions? Not sure what the bureaucratic procedure should be. If we had more time, I would like to have a good internal ALAC debate about your statement:
I believe it is not ICANN's or registrars' role to address criminal activity, beyond not knowingly aiding it.<
I actually fundamentally disagree with that position. And that position is distilled from what I know from the "consumer" or "user" community. I would be interested to know how the rest of ALAC feels. Also, you wrote:
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.< Both of which I agree with, and I don't mind including that, if you want. Again, I would like to hear from the rest of the group what they think...though I realize it's late August and the day before the Labor Day weekend in the US... -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:36 AM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read 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.ica nn.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/ *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********
Wendy, When this whole experiment started, the stated intent of the Joint Project Agreement was to transition U.S. Government management of the DNS to a private entity that would function as the new manager. If the U.S. Government was still the manager of the DNS doubtless it would address criminal activity. Why then should the role of the new manager be any different? Why should ICANN not be empowered to accredit institutions that will rapidly take down or suspend the domains of those engaged in criminal activity? --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> Cc: "ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:35 AM 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/
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (4)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Danny Younger -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Wendy Seltzer