[ga] [Fwd: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment]

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

  For your review, and as an FYI...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:23:54 -0800
From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup
To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Derek Smythe
<derek@xxxxxxxxx>,icann board <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>,ICANN Policy staff
<policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>,"twomey@xxxxxxxxx" <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>,GAC Rep
<ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,"ICANN
Admin supp. Manager Karen Lettner" <karen.lettner@xxxxxxxxx>,ICANN Dan
Halloran <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>,ICANN Kim Davies
<kim.davies@xxxxxxxxx>,icann legal <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>,ICANN Marc
Salvatierra <marc.salvatierra@xxxxxxxxx>,ICANN Marilyn Vernon
<marilyn.vernon@xxxxxxxxx>,"'John L. Crain'" <john.crain@xxxxxxxxx>,Alan
Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>,At-Large Staff
<staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Cheryl Langdon-Orr
<cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,Evan Leibovitch
<evan@xxxxxxxxx>,Frederic Teboul <frederic.teboul@xxxxxxxxx>,Kieren
McCarthy <kieren.mccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>,Maria Farrell
<maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>,"matthias.langenegger@xxxxxxxxx"
<matthias.langenegger@xxxxxxxxx>,Nick Ashton-Hart
<Nick.Ashton-Hart@xxxxxxxxx>,Peter Dengate Thrush
<barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
BCC: Izumi AIZU <iza@xxxxxxx>, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,2nd
addr for Robert Guerra <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Adam Peake
<ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>,Bill Silverstein
<icann-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,"Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,Bret
Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Che-Hoo CHENG
<chcheng@xxxxxxxx>,"Darlene Thompson," <DThompson@xxxxxxxxx>,Dessi
Pefeva <dpefeva@xxxxxxx>,Dharma Dailey
<dharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>,"Dr.
Joe Baptista" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Edwardo Diaz
<ediaz@xxxxxxxx>,Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Florian
Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxx>, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@xxxxxxxxx>,Hovav Shacham
<hovav@xxxxxxxxx>,Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>,Ian Peter
<ian.peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,"Jacqueline A. Morris"
<jam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John L
<johnl@xxxxxxxx>,Jonathan Zittrain <zittrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,"Karl E.
Peters" <kpeters@xxxxxxxxxxx>,Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh@xxxxxxx>,marilyn
cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>,McTim <dogwallah@xxxxxxxxx>,Michele
Neylon <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Milton L Mueller
<mueller@xxxxxxx>,"Nevett, Jonathon"
<jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Nguyen Thu Hue
<huenguyen@xxxxxxxxx>,Norbert Klein <nhklein@xxxxxxx>,Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>,"Ond?ej Surý" <ondrej.sury@xxxxxx>, Ross
Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>,Siavash Shahshahani
<shahshah@xxxxxxxx>,Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
<isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>,Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras@xxxxxxxxx>,"Sébastien
Bachollet" <sebastien.bachollet@xxxxxxx>,Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>,
Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>,Wim Vandevelde
<wim-vandevelde@xxxxxxx>,Wolfgang
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,WWWhatsup
<joly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, YJ Park <yjpark21@xxxxxxxxx>
References:
<109214.58932.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><70B07F10524F48488D35679AF3AD5CB870A9D26C8E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<494760E2.3020800@xxxxxxxxx>

Derek and all,

  It doesn't matter as a matter of law if you, Danny or anyone
else agrees with Danny or not.  You don't have a right of any sort,
as much as I dislike that reality myself.  Registrants have a choice
of Registrars, and registrars are bound by contract ( in this case
the RAA contracts ) to abide by all the terms of that/those contracts
and are under no obligation at present to provide you or any other
registrant with the information you would like to have, even though
it would be more honest and above board for them to do so.

  ICANN's legal eagle's created the terms of the RAA contracts long
ago now, and even though than there was much disagreement with
many of the terms of those contracts than as there is now, the ICANN
Board voted in favor of the RAA contracts as they currently stand, and
DOC/NTIA did not override as was their right to do if they felt there
was a need to do so.  They obviously did not.

  Now as we all know or should know, ICANN has accredited these
registrars of which some, if not many are misbehaving horribly, and
so far largely have been getting away with such errant behavior for
years now.  But as ICANN has the oversight authority for THEIR
Registrars and Registries, it is THEIR responsibility/job to take
whatever
appropriate action to correct those bad behaviors that they are willing
and able to do.  So far ICANN has been unable to reasonably do so
on a broad scale and effectively enough in accordance with a significant
number of Registrants opinion.  Than corrective action should fall to
DOC/NTIA.  This also seems to either not have happened, or has
been so inadequately handled that some if not many, but at least too
many registrants have been cheated, by either hook or crook, as it
were, with no reasonable or fair recourse.  This should not indeed
stand.

  So the actual question before every registrant that cares, should be
should ICANN itself still be in charge here, or perhaps some other
body?  Some have suggested a International body, but that solution
has met with significant criticism as no such body is either qualified
or is trusted enough.  Ergo what is left is to reform ICANN, and
inparticular to start with amending the RAA's appropriately.  What
is and what is not appropriate is where the rub still remains.

  To amend the RAA contracts as Danny and Derek are suggesting
to the degree they are suggesting is dangerous on a number of levels,
all of which have been discussed and debated to near death with no
plural agreement.  But to suggest that Registrants have superior rights
to Registrars or registries, is of course not historically legally
supported,
as means of legal service are still available and lacking any other
reason,
no good reason otherwise can be properly or legitimately articulated.

Derek Smythe wrote:

> I agree with Danny, Beau and many other users on these issues.
>
> Firstly, as a registrant, I have the right to know who I am dealing
> with, who will receive my credit card details for a domain payment, who
> will have my personal details. This is extremely topical, based on the
> latest EstDomains saga.
>
> I will also say it here: I find it ironical that certain internet
> miscreants go to great lengths to hide their true locality, using
> maildrops and non-geographical identifying email addresses, even
> international forwarding telephone numbers hiding their locality. Yet
> registrars  are allowed to do the same? How then can I expect legitimate
> registrants to supply valid domain registration details? How can I
> expect registrars to investigate invalid whois complaints if they
> themselves are trying to hide?
>
> Just the past month again I was asked by a supposedly American registrar
> to lodge a complaint at an online form at an .au domain.
>
> I think we each need to ask ourselves:
> Would I want to do business with a company that deliberately tries to
> hide it's true locality. If not, why subject registrants to this practice.
>
> Deviating slightly: The same can be said for privacy providers. Consider
> the following appearing in the whois of many domains:
> CSMJBS Enterprises - Private Registration, 412 Lavender Ct., N. Las
> Vegas, NV,  89031-0520, US
>
> After reading something very disturbing on the web, I had somebody
> verify this address. It does not exist. Yet this company is providing a
> private registration to hundreds of registrants. Right now all these
> registrants are unknowingly in breach of the registrant agreement and
> theoretically may lose their domains ("willfully supplied inaccurate
> whois details"), unless the registrars bend the rules!
>
> How can we expect to uplift the public image of the domain industry if
> the proprietors are less than credible and responsible?
>
> Brendler, Beau wrote:
> > I don't want to question anyone's motives, but I do agree specifically with 
> > Danny -- this proposed amendment needs to go further in order to be 
> > effective. See Consumer Reports WebWatch's guidelines 
> > (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm) 
> > for a more detailed variation (guideline one is pasted below), and note 
> > more than 300 companies, from Hewlett-Packard to ING to CNN to Earthlink 
> > have agreed to abide by these guidelines:
> >
> > 1. Identity:
> > Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location where they are 
> > produced, including an address, a telephone number or e-mail address.
> > Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, naming 
> > their parent company.
> > Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission.
> >
> > As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam businesses, 
> > going the extra mile for physical location where the site is produced is 
> > necessary.
> > ________________________________________
> > From: na-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [na-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger 
> > [dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM
> > To: At-Large Worldwide
> > Cc: NA Discuss
> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment
> >
> > ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO 
> > community to approve the RAA amendments as a package.  The latest amendment 
> > added to the package is this:
> >
> > 3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details 
> > including valid email and mailing address.
> >
> > Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify 
> > its primary place of business.  The registrar could have its primary base 
> > of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation 
> > that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could 
> > serve as a valid email and mailing address).
> >
> > Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" 
> > addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary 
> > addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior?  The proposed 
> > amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users 
> > on this topic.
> >
> > Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give 
> > lip service to user concerns.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> > ------
> >
> > ***
> > Scanned
> >
> > **
> > This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named 
> > above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be 
> > confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
> > you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any 
> > attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents.  
> > If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the 
> > sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any 
> > attachments from your computer system.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827