RE: [council] Law Enforcement Recommend RAA Amendments and ICANN Due Diligence

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina & Bruce,

As part of the work of the GNSO's RAA Drafting Team,  law enforcement 
representatives participated in the group's meeting in Seoul and in one of 
their bi-weekly meetings to share their perspective and their proposed 
amendments.  The RAA working group is currently evaluating these and other RAA 
amendment proposals for inclusion into its report to the GNSO Council that is 
expected to be delivered before Brussels.

If you would like more information on the LE proposals, please see:

Seoul Meeting:  http://sel.icann.org/node/7372

RAA Working Group email with the LE proposals attached: 

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-b/msg00010.html

LE Discussion with the RAA drafting team:

Transcript of RAA meeting on 3 December 2009, where law enforcement 
representative Bobby Flaim discussed these proposals:  
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-raa-sub-team-b-03dec09-en.pdf


Best Regards,

Margie

_______________
Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_______________

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:42 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council 
Subject: RE: [council] Law Enforcement Recommend RAA Amendments and ICANN Due 
Diligence


Thanks, Bruce.

They were originally proposed at one of the Monday afternoon malicious conduct 
sessions during the Seoul meeting.  The meeting "node" doesn't have the 
presentation, which I recall was somewhat broader (albeit less specific) than 
below.   If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:14 AM
To: GNSO Council 
Subject: [council] Law Enforcement Recommend RAA Amendments and ICANN Due 
Diligence


Not sure where the original law enforcement document was submitted.  Below is 
what I found at:

https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi/LawEnforcementRAArecommendations%20(2).doc?action=attachments_download;page_name=05_january_2010;id=20091118185109-0-21002.


Law Enforcement Recommend RAA Amendments and ICANN Due Diligence


Introduction: Below are: 1) suggested amendments to the RAA and; 2) due 
diligence recommendations for ICANN to adopt in accrediting registrars and 
registries.  Both are supported by the following international law enforcement 
agencies:

• Australian Federal Police;
• Department of Justice (US);
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (US); • New Zealand Police; • Royal Canadian 
Mounted Police; • Serious Organised Crime Agency (UK)

The amendments are considered to be required in order to aid the prevention and 
disruption of efforts to exploit domain registration procedures by Criminal 
Groups for criminal purposes.   The proposed amendments take account of 
existing EU, US, Canadian and Australian legislation and those countries 
commitment to preserving individual’s rights to privacy.  These amendments 
would maintain these protections whilst facilitating effective investigation of 
Internet related crime. 


I. Proposed Amendments to the RAA (May 21, 2009 version) 
========================================================

1)   The RAA should not explicitly condone or encourage the use of Proxy 
Registrations or Privacy Services, as it appears in paragraphs 3.4.1   and 
3.12.4.  This goes directly against the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) ICANN 
signed with the United States Department of Commerce on September 25, 2006 
which specifically states “ICANN shall continue to enforce existing (Whois) 
policy”, i.e., totally open and public WHOIS, and the September 30, 2009, 
Affirmation of Commitments, paragraph 9.3.1 which states “ICANN implement 
measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and 
complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and 
administrative contact information.” Lastly, proxy and privacy registrations 
contravene the 2007 GAC Principles on WHOIS.  

If there are proxy and/or privacy domain name registrations, the following is 
recommended concerning their use: 
       

a. Registrars are to accept proxy/privacy registrations only from ICANN 
accredited Proxy Registration Services;1

        (1:  ICANN to implement accreditation system for Proxy Services using 
the same  stringent checks and assurances as provided in these points, to 
ensure that all proxy   services used are traceable and can supply correct 
details of registrant to relevant    authorities.)

b. Registrants using privacy/proxy registration services will have authentic 
WHOIS information immediately published by the Registrar when registrant is 
found to be violating terms of service, including but not limited to the use of 
false data, fraudulent use, spamming and/or criminal activity.
  

2) To RAA paragraph 5.3.2.1, language should be added to the effect “or 
knowingly and/or through gross negligence permit criminal activity in the 
registration of domain names or provision of domain name WHOIS information…”


3) All Accredited Registrars must submit to ICANN accurate and verifiable 
contact details of their main operational and physical office location, 
including country, phone number (with international prefix), street address, 
city, and region, to be publicly disclosed in ICANN web directory.  Address 
must also be posted clearly on the Registrar's main website.  Post Office 
boxes, incorporation addresses, mail-drop, and mail-forwarding locations will 
not be acceptable.  In addition, Registrar must submit URL and location of Port 
43 WHOIS server.


4) Registrars must publicly display of the name of CEO, President, and/or other 
responsible officer(s).


5) Registrars with multiple accreditations must disclose and publicly display 
on their website parent ownership or corporate relationship, i.e.,  identify 
controlling interests.
 

6) Registrar must notify ICANN immediately of the following and concurrently 
update Registrar website:

a. any and all changes to a Registrar’s  location; b. changes to presiding 
officer(s); c. bankruptcy filing; d. change of ownership; e. criminal 
convictions ; f. legal/civil actions


7) Registrar should be legal entity within the country of operation, and should 
provide ICANN with official certification of business registration or license.


8) Resellers must be held completely accountable to ALL provisions of the RAA.  
Registrars must contractually obligate all its Resellers to comply and enforce 
all RAA provisions.  The Registrar will be held directly liable for any breach 
of the RAA a Reseller commits in which the Registrar does not remediate 
immediately.  All Registrar resellers and third-party beneficiaries should be 
listed and reported to ICANN who shall maintain accurate and updated records.  


9) Registrars and all associated third-party beneficiaries to Registrars are 
required to collect and securely maintain the following data (Ref: 
Anti-Phishing Working Group (AGWG) “Anti-Phishing Best Practices 
Recommendations for Registrars”, October 2008): 

(i) Source IP address

(ii) HTTP Request Headers

(a) From
(b) Accept
(c) Accept‐Encoding
(d) Accept‐Language
(e) User‐Agent
(f) Referrer
(g) Authorization
(h) Charge‐To
(i) If‐Modified‐Since

(iii) Collect and store the following data from registrants:

(a) First Name:
(b) Last Name:
(c) E‐mail Address:
(d) Alternate E‐mail address
(e) Company Name:
(f) Position:
(g) Address 1:
(h) Address 2:
(i) City:
(j) Country:
(k) State:
(l) Enter State:
(m) Zip:
(n) Phone Number:
(o) Additional Phone:
(p) Fax:
(q) Alternative Contact First Name:
(r) Alternative Contact Last Name:
(s) Alternative Contact E‐mail:
(t) Alternative Contact Phone:

(iv) Collect data on all additional add‐on services purchased during the 
registration process.

(v) All financial transactions, including, but not limited to credit card, 
payment information. 


10) Each registrar is required to validate the following data upon receipt from 
a registrant Ref: Anti-Phishing Working Group (AGWG) “Anti-Phishing Best 
Practices Recommendations for Registrars”, October 2008):

(1) Technical Data
       
(a) IP addresses used to register domain names.

(b) E‐mail Address

        (i) Verify that registration e‐mail address(es) are valid.


(2) Billing Data

(a) Validate billing data based on the payment card industry (PCI standards), 
at a minimum, the latest version of the PCI Data Security Standard (DSS).


(3) Contact Data

(a) Validate data is being provided by a human by using some anti‐automatic 
form submission technology (such as dynamic imaging) to ensure registrations 
are done by humans.

(b) Validate current address WHOIS data and correlate with in‐house fraudulent 
data for domain contact information and registrant’s IP address.


(4) Phone Numbers

(i) Confirm that point of contact phone numbers are valid using an automated 
system. 

(ii) Cross validate the phone number area code with the provided address and 
credit card billing address.



11) Registrar must provide abuse contact information, including the SSAC SAC 
038 recommendations below (ICANN SSAC SAC 038: Registrar Abuse Point of 
Contact, 25 February 2009):

• Registrars must prominently publish abuse contact information on their 
website and WHOIS.

        1. The registrar identified in the sponsoring registrar field of a 
Whois entry should have an abuse contact listed prominently on its web page. To 
assist the community in locating this page, registrars should use uniform 
naming convention to facilitate (automated and rapid) discovery of this page, 
i.e., http://www.<registar>.<TLD>/abuse.html.

        2. Registrars should provide ICANN with their abuse contact information 
and ICANN should publish this information at 
http://www.internic.net/regist.html.


• The information a registrar publishes for the abuse point of contact should 
be consistent with contact details currently proposed as an amendment to 
Section 3.16 of the RAA. Each contact method (telephone, email, postal address) 
should reach an individual at the Registrar who will be able to promptly and 
competently attend to an abuse claim; for example, no contact should 
intentionally reject postal or email submissions.

• Registrars should provide complainants with a well-defined, auditable way to 
track abuse complaints (e.g. a ticketing or similar tracking system). 


12)  ICANN should require Registrars to have a Service Level Agreement for 
their Port 43 servers. 


II. Proposed ICANN Due Diligence on current and new gTLD Registrars and 
Registries 
==================================================================================

a. ICANN to conduct enhanced due diligence on all Registrars and Registries 
(including but not limited to owners, officers, board of directors) ICANN 
accredits, or has accredited, to include, but not limited to: 

• criminal checks;
• credit checks;
• financial history and solvency;
• corporate/company structure and ownership.  

For example: Dunn and Bradstreet, Lexis-Nexis, Clear, World-Check, etc. 


b. Such due diligence shall be documented by ICANN, in detail, in a written 
report that can be provided upon request to appropriate auditors. 


c. ICANN should provide complainants with well-defined and auditable way to 
track complaints against Registrars and Registries. 


        i. ICANN should publish annual detailed reports of reported complaints. 

d. ICANN should conduct WHOIS compliance audits, at least once a year, and 
publish results on:

i. Port 43 

ii. WHOIS accuracy