<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Law Enforcement Recommend RAA Amendments and ICANN Due Diligence
Note that I forwarded this to Janis as follow-up to his letter to the Board and
request that the GNSO RAA WG consider this.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:20 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Law Enforcement Recommend RAA
> Amendments and ICANN Due Diligence
>
>
> 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-03dec
> 09-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/LawEnforcementRAAre
> commendations%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
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|