Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes?
Source: http://www.knujon.com/news.html Phantom Registrars In investigating the 48 Directi-owned Registrars with questionable locations, we reported facts. The address used by many of these Registrars: "14525 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97005-2343" is the address of a mail forwarding service called Earthclassmail. According to Directi, the listed companies are registered in Delaware, but not in Oregon or New York as listed in the ICANN Directory. Directi is headquartered in Mumbai, India. KnujOn feels that any company given so much responsibility over the Internet should fully disclose where they are located, but this is apparently not an ICANN requirement. Indeed, Stacy Burnette, director of contractual compliance at ICANN, said the organization is satisfied the registrars are incorporated in the location listed in their application. Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation, she said. ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation. To which KnujOn says: Huh? So, as the expression goes, don't hate the player hate the game. Directi merely acquired these accreditations by ICANN's own rules. Summary: One address in the application, a second address disclosed to the public. Read this line again: "ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation." How does this figure into ICANN's mission to be an open and transparent organization? "Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation". How can there be any accountability? This situation is upside-down. Registrants are required to list their valid contact information, but the Registrars who sponsor their domains are not.
There should be complete transparency in this, otherwise it gives the impression that these registrars are doing something illegal. So which committee/organization do we approach to start discussing and change this? Eduardo Diaz ISOC-PR -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:03 AM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes? Source: http://www.knujon.com/news.html Phantom Registrars In investigating the 48 Directi-owned Registrars with questionable locations, we reported facts. The address used by many of these Registrars: "14525 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97005-2343" is the address of a mail forwarding service called Earthclassmail. According to Directi, the listed companies are registered in Delaware, but not in Oregon or New York as listed in the ICANN Directory. Directi is headquartered in Mumbai, India. KnujOn feels that any company given so much responsibility over the Internet should fully disclose where they are located, but this is apparently not an ICANN requirement. Indeed, Stacy Burnette, director of contractual compliance at ICANN, said the organization is satisfied the registrars are incorporated in the location listed in their application. Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation, she said. ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation. To which KnujOn says: Huh? So, as the expression goes, don't hate the player hate the game. Directi merely acquired these accreditations by ICANN's own rules. Summary: One address in the application, a second address disclosed to the public. Read this line again: "ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation." How does this figure into ICANN's mission to be an open and transparent organization? "Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation". How can there be any accountability? This situation is upside-down. Registrants are required to list their valid contact information, but the Registrars who sponsor their domains are not. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 6:57 AM
Eduardo, Every ICANN-accredited registrar is required to complete the Shared Registry System Registrar Accreditation Application -- see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-application.htm This document requires the applicant to disclose certain details such as "business address of the entity applicant". ICANN has stated "ICANN intends to conduct registrar accreditation in as open and transparent a manner as feasible. To that end, ICANN will be free to disclose and use information submitted in connection with an application in any manner and to anyone it deems appropriate" -- see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/instructions.htm Apparently, ICANN has not deemed it appropriate to disclose accurate registrar contact details to the general public (otherwise, all of these applications would have been publicly posted which is what one would expect if ICANN actually were a transparent organization). However, we have the right under the ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks and Principles document (approved by the ICANN Board in New Delhi) to request unpublished information: "If a member of the public requests information not already publicly available, ICANN will respond, to the extent feasible, to reasonable requests within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request. If that time frame will not be met, ICANN will inform the requester in writing as to when a response will be provided, setting forth the reasons necessary for the extension of time to respond. If ICANN denies the information request, it will provide a written statement to the requestor identifying the reasons for the denial." If members of the NARALO agree, we can invoke our right to ask for the publication of these registrar accreditation applications. I wouldn't mind taking this topic up at our next monthly meeting... Danny --- On Thu, 9/4/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> wrote:
From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes? To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 5:00 PM There should be complete transparency in this, otherwise it gives the impression that these registrars are doing something illegal.
So which committee/organization do we approach to start discussing and change this?
Eduardo Diaz
ISOC-PR
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:03 AM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes?
Source: http://www.knujon.com/news.html
Phantom Registrars
In investigating the 48 Directi-owned Registrars with questionable locations, we reported facts. The address used by many of these Registrars: "14525 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97005-2343" is the address of a mail forwarding service called Earthclassmail. According to Directi, the listed companies are registered in Delaware, but not in Oregon or New York as listed in the ICANN Directory. Directi is headquartered in Mumbai, India. KnujOn feels that any company given so much responsibility over the Internet should fully disclose where they are located, but this is apparently not an ICANN requirement.
Indeed, Stacy Burnette, director of contractual compliance at ICANN, said the organization is satisfied the registrars are incorporated in the location listed in their application. Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation, she said. ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation.
To which KnujOn says: Huh? So, as the expression goes, don't hate the player hate the game. Directi merely acquired these accreditations by ICANN's own rules. Summary: One address in the application, a second address disclosed to the public. Read this line again: "ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation." How does this figure into ICANN's mission to be an open and transparent organization? "Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation". How can there be any accountability? This situation is upside-down. Registrants are required to list their valid contact information, but the Registrars who sponsor their domains are not.
------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 6:57 AM
Danny: If we do this, can we publish this information ourselves once we get it? Eduardo Diaz ISOC-PR -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:27 PM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ediaz@prtc.net Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes? Eduardo, Every ICANN-accredited registrar is required to complete the Shared Registry System Registrar Accreditation Application -- see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-application.htm This document requires the applicant to disclose certain details such as "business address of the entity applicant". ICANN has stated "ICANN intends to conduct registrar accreditation in as open and transparent a manner as feasible. To that end, ICANN will be free to disclose and use information submitted in connection with an application in any manner and to anyone it deems appropriate" -- see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/instructions.htm Apparently, ICANN has not deemed it appropriate to disclose accurate registrar contact details to the general public (otherwise, all of these applications would have been publicly posted which is what one would expect if ICANN actually were a transparent organization). However, we have the right under the ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks and Principles document (approved by the ICANN Board in New Delhi) to request unpublished information: "If a member of the public requests information not already publicly available, ICANN will respond, to the extent feasible, to reasonable requests within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request. If that time frame will not be met, ICANN will inform the requester in writing as to when a response will be provided, setting forth the reasons necessary for the extension of time to respond. If ICANN denies the information request, it will provide a written statement to the requestor identifying the reasons for the denial." If members of the NARALO agree, we can invoke our right to ask for the publication of these registrar accreditation applications. I wouldn't mind taking this topic up at our next monthly meeting... Danny --- On Thu, 9/4/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> wrote:
From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes? To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 5:00 PM There should be complete transparency in this, otherwise it gives the impression that these registrars are doing something illegal.
So which committee/organization do we approach to start discussing and change this?
Eduardo Diaz
ISOC-PR
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:03 AM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes?
Source: http://www.knujon.com/news.html
Phantom Registrars
In investigating the 48 Directi-owned Registrars with questionable locations, we reported facts. The address used by many of these Registrars: "14525 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97005-2343" is the address of a mail forwarding service called Earthclassmail. According to Directi, the listed companies are registered in Delaware, but not in Oregon or New York as listed in the ICANN Directory. Directi is headquartered in Mumbai, India. KnujOn feels that any company given so much responsibility over the Internet should fully disclose where they are located, but this is apparently not an ICANN requirement.
Indeed, Stacy Burnette, director of contractual compliance at ICANN, said the organization is satisfied the registrars are incorporated in the location listed in their application. Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation, she said. ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation.
To which KnujOn says: Huh? So, as the expression goes, don't hate the player hate the game. Directi merely acquired these accreditations by ICANN's own rules. Summary: One address in the application, a second address disclosed to the public. Read this line again: "ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation." How does this figure into ICANN's mission to be an open and transparent organization? "Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation". How can there be any accountability? This situation is upside-down. Registrants are required to list their valid contact information, but the Registrars who sponsor their domains are not.
------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica
nn.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 6:57 AM
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 6:57 AM
Yes. We can expect that all "confidential material" (as stipulated in section V. Submission of Confidential Materials) would be redacted and that the remainder would fall into the sphere of the public domain. --- On Thu, 9/4/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> wrote:
From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes? To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 5:33 PM Danny:
If we do this, can we publish this information ourselves once we get it?
Hey Danny, The next monthly meeting is on Monday and this will be on the agenda and you SHOULD bring it up. D ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Danny Younger Sent: Thu 9/4/2008 5:26 PM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ediaz@prtc.net Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised ComprehensiveReview of ICANN Accreditation Processes? Eduardo, Every ICANN-accredited registrar is required to complete the Shared Registry System Registrar Accreditation Application -- see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-application.htm This document requires the applicant to disclose certain details such as "business address of the entity applicant". ICANN has stated "ICANN intends to conduct registrar accreditation in as open and transparent a manner as feasible. To that end, ICANN will be free to disclose and use information submitted in connection with an application in any manner and to anyone it deems appropriate" -- see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/instructions.htm Apparently, ICANN has not deemed it appropriate to disclose accurate registrar contact details to the general public (otherwise, all of these applications would have been publicly posted which is what one would expect if ICANN actually were a transparent organization). However, we have the right under the ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks and Principles document (approved by the ICANN Board in New Delhi) to request unpublished information: "If a member of the public requests information not already publicly available, ICANN will respond, to the extent feasible, to reasonable requests within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request. If that time frame will not be met, ICANN will inform the requester in writing as to when a response will be provided, setting forth the reasons necessary for the extension of time to respond. If ICANN denies the information request, it will provide a written statement to the requestor identifying the reasons for the denial." If members of the NARALO agree, we can invoke our right to ask for the publication of these registrar accreditation applications. I wouldn't mind taking this topic up at our next monthly meeting... Danny --- On Thu, 9/4/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> wrote:
From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes? To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 5:00 PM There should be complete transparency in this, otherwise it gives the impression that these registrars are doing something illegal.
So which committee/organization do we approach to start discussing and change this?
Eduardo Diaz
ISOC-PR
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:03 AM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes?
Source: http://www.knujon.com/news.html
Phantom Registrars
In investigating the 48 Directi-owned Registrars with questionable locations, we reported facts. The address used by many of these Registrars: "14525 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97005-2343" is the address of a mail forwarding service called Earthclassmail. According to Directi, the listed companies are registered in Delaware, but not in Oregon or New York as listed in the ICANN Directory. Directi is headquartered in Mumbai, India. KnujOn feels that any company given so much responsibility over the Internet should fully disclose where they are located, but this is apparently not an ICANN requirement.
Indeed, Stacy Burnette, director of contractual compliance at ICANN, said the organization is satisfied the registrars are incorporated in the location listed in their application. Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation, she said. ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation.
To which KnujOn says: Huh? So, as the expression goes, don't hate the player hate the game. Directi merely acquired these accreditations by ICANN's own rules. Summary: One address in the application, a second address disclosed to the public. Read this line again: "ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation." How does this figure into ICANN's mission to be an open and transparent organization? "Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation". How can there be any accountability? This situation is upside-down. Registrants are required to list their valid contact information, but the Registrars who sponsor their domains are not.
------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org <http://www.naralo.org/>
------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 6:57 AM
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
Darlene and all, There are times when it becomes necessary to send a note to the CEO. Promises were made to the user community, and these promises should be kept. Recent discussions pertaining to the ongoing accreditation of shell corporations have prompted me to compose this note. Your feedback (onlist or at our upcoming meeting) would be appreciated: Dear Dr. Twomey, On 21 March 2007 you stated: “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.” While we are grateful that attention has been given to the content of the RAA, we are still awaiting the promised comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. Members of the NARALO are of the view that 18 months is a sufficient window of time within which such a review could have been consummated. We look forward to ICANN's timely publication of the comprehensive registrar accreditation process review.
we have a sort of official response from the registrars, by the way, to the current ALAC statement on the RAA -- I can talk about it on the call Monday or give me a call in the office later today (after 2 est) (914) 378-2018 ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:12 PM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ediaz@prtc.net; Thompson, Darlene Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Proposed Letter to Paul Twomey -- input requested Darlene and all, There are times when it becomes necessary to send a note to the CEO. Promises were made to the user community, and these promises should be kept. Recent discussions pertaining to the ongoing accreditation of shell corporations have prompted me to compose this note. Your feedback (onlist or at our upcoming meeting) would be appreciated: Dear Dr. Twomey, On 21 March 2007 you stated: “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.” While we are grateful that attention has been given to the content of the RAA, we are still awaiting the promised comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. Members of the NARALO are of the view that 18 months is a sufficient window of time within which such a review could have been consummated. We look forward to ICANN's timely publication of the comprehensive registrar accreditation process review. ------ 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 ------ *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********
participants (4)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Danny Younger -
Eduardo Diaz -
Thompson, Darlene