<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Fake renewal update
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Fake renewal update
- From: Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:44:12 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Councilors --
On the subject of GNSO action on fake renewal notices, you recall I volunteered
to investigate with the Registrar Stakeholder Group various alternatives to
evaluate the most effective method for addressing the problem.
In my 11 September 2012 email to the council, registrars proposed the following
steps as a way to arrive at a solution:
1. Discuss the issue with ICANN Compliance to make SG and GNSO concerns known,
as previous legal actions may impact renewal of offenders'
accreditation agreements.
2. Communicate to jurisdictional authorities as a SG to make our concerns known
and to assess renewed enforcement – especially authorities like the FTC and the
Canadian consumer agency that have already brought cases and may have stronger
enforcement tools (e.g., civil penalties for violations of settlement
agreements, etc.) that can be used.
3. Report findings to the GNSO Council.
4. Investigate whether or not enforceable contract language can be crafted, and
the extent to which it could be equally or more effective than enforcement
actions to date. For example, rather than requiring ICANN to make a
determination about the behavior, a contractual provision that says
accreditation can be revoked where a registrar has been found to be in
violation of a court order or regulatory cease and desist order.
I spoke with the compliance team, as promised. They are well aware that one
actor is particularly infamous for this practice, and has been subject to
American and Canadian consumer protection actions in the early to mid part of
the last decade. We don't have any evidence obviously of how he responded to
those actions, except that we know the offenses persist.
There have been comparatively minimal complaints made to compliance -- fewer
than 100 since 2008 -- on this subject (no matter who the actor). This DOES
NOT suggest it's a small problem -- only that ICANN doesn't receive many
complaints about it. Others certainly do. Complaint volume contributes to
issue prioritization, as you might know, and therefore this has been
comparatively low on their operational priority list.
Further, the accreditation agreement, as discussed, doesn't address marketing
speech, a thorny area to begin with. Enforcement against the actor might,
however, be pursued by looking at previous action by US and Canadian
governments to see if it can be used against their accreditation. However,
registrars believe it is inappropriate to do so without clearer understanding
of applicable law and a plan for what would happen to end-user names if the
accreditation were to be revoked.
The RrSG's recommended next step is to collect evidence of the activity and
provide it again to consumer protection authorities. We conferred with our
legal advisor about this. In the US, the Better Business Bureau helps
consumers and businesses form very effective complaints for the immediate
attention of consumer protection authorities, and our advisor is prepared to
call on relationships she has with the BBB and the authorities to fast-track
the issue. To be fair, since their previous action, they may be unaware that
the actor is up to his old tricks.
This approach, we believe, has two benefits:
1. The FTC and others handle consumer protection matters full time and are far
better prepared to take binding action that will have enforceable impact. We
recognize previous action was not ultimately effective -- which says that if
the FTC as consumer protection experts have difficulty, the GNSO is likely to
have more difficulty in rooting out the problem.
2. Another judgment could give Compliance a more firm route to enforcement via
the terms of the accreditation. That is, another judgment on record can be the
basis of pursuing the accreditation itself.
I have asked registrars to provide documentation of the offending behavior,
which they have begun to do. Further, the DT collected input an evidence of
the behavior during its work, which I've added to the documentation. We will
form this into a complaint for authorities in our respective jurisdictions and
ask for immediate attention.
We're aware there is impatience in the community on this problem (where ISN'T
there impatience in the community?) but as we've said before, the critical
element is to be effective, or we'll end up talking about this again a year
from now.
I would ask the Council to observe the results of this step before we move
forward with another option that may not have the impact we intend.
I'm happy to review this in any of our sessions in Toronto, or to speak with
any of you individually about it. While there are some allowances on issues of
predatory marketing, please keep in mind our ongoing obligation to stay within
anti-trust rules when discussing our competition (even if it's a bad guy).
I will keep the Council updated as this progresses.
Thanks --
Mason
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|