Dear Fellows: After read the atached letter for me its clear that there is a HUGE conflict of interest. An ICANN accredited Registrar to escrow other Registrars ? No, sorry. Even with a very specific confidentiality contract and policy... we might opt for a diff provider... Could you redirect this email to Mike cc Kurt? Are the other proposals so weak ??? Best Regards, Ricardo Vaz Monteiro Nomer.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon Sent: quinta-feira, 9 de agosto de 2007 11:12 To: Registrars Constituency Subject: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow Registrars: The following is an e-mail message from Kurt Pritz regarding ICANN's data escrow program. It appears that ICANN staff has selected Iron Mountain as the ICANN preferred provider pending final comments and a contract. Because a division of Iron Mountain actually is an accredited registrar, it has supplied -- at ICANN's request -- the attached document that shows how it proposes to address any conflicts of interest concerns. I should note that we all have a choice of whether to use the ICANN provider (at ICANN's expense) or select an escrow provider of our choosing (at our expense) that is approved by ICANN. Please provide any comments to the list or directly to Kurt or Mike Zupke. Thanks. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:pritz@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 6:58 PM To: Nevett, Jonathon Cc: Mike Zupke; Tim Cole Subject: Information regarding Data Escrow Jon: In response to discussions with the Registrar Constituency regarding data escrow services, please provide the attached document to the constituency members for their review and information. After analysis of seven responses to an RFP for the provision of data escrow services, Iron Mountain has emerged as the most suitable candidate. There were other competent proposals but, balancing the criteria provided in the RFP, ICANN has begun negotiations with Iron Mountain. Other candidates have been informed that the process is not yet closed but these negotiations have started. ICANN understood concerns voiced in the RC meeting regarding selection of an accredited registrar for this task. Given those concerns (and in accordance with best practices anyway) we set out to understand all potential conflicts of interest that might exist for Iron Mountain. ICANN sent, and Iron Mountain returned for distribution to the constituency, the attached questionnaire. We think the responses are open and frank. We also believe that these responses, the fact that Iron Mountain presently escrows some registrar data, and the fact that Iron Mountain's business model is predicated on the trust that confidential data will not be compromised demonstrate its suitability as a potential service provider. We understand that some registrars may opt for a different provider for various reasons but hope that those who make that choice understand that this appears now to be the best selection for ICANN at this time. I hope this is helpful. If there are questions or comments from constituency members, please have them forwarded directly to Mike Zupke or me. As an aside, you will also notice a second section to the questionnaire regarding contingency, disaster and failure planning. We added this because it was thought that the original RFP did not solicit sufficient information in this regard. Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 Marina del Rey. CA 90292 +1.310.301.5809 (office) +1.310.400.4184 (mobile)