RE: [ga] Registerfly loses approximately 75,000 customer domains

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik,

> please read the letter sent by ICA to Paul Twomey
> 
> http://www.internetcommerceassociation.org/the_ica_questions_i
> cann_presi
> dent_on_registerfly_accreditation_and_remdedial_action
> 
> and notice the paragraph about the Ombudsman.
> 

I know the letter. Incidentally, it is few days old, and some concerns have
been addressed already by this document, sent the same day:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/registerfly-notice-of-breach-21feb07.pdf
.

However, back to the point of the Ombudsman, I think that we have different
opinions on his/her role.
To me, and this is only my opinion, although I believe that it is shared by
several Directors, the Ombudsman's only role is to check whether the Board,
or some entity underneath the Board's control, has been acting in violation
of the procedures, or has otherwise been unfair to specific people.
Nowhere it is written (nor meant, nor implied) that the Ombudsman should
have "sent at least a warning letter to RegisterFly when this had become
apparent".


> 
> Maybe an oportunity to redefine the role of the Ombudsman 
> from scratch.
> And all others involved in this case.

Maybe.
If your point is that the rights of the registrants could be defended
better, I am with you.
I do believe that one of the problems we have is that internet consumers
have insufficient protection. If in the physical world one of my rights is
violated (let's say, somebody is parked in my driveway and does not allow me
to get out), there is an authority who has jurisdiction and that can enforce
the law (in the example, have the car towed away). However, if the same
happens in the virtual world (let's say, I am the victim of a DoS attack,
and can't perform my job) there is no obvious authority I can complain to
and expect to take action. This is not rlated to the next problem, which is
how to identify the attacker, it is just the primary action, which is some
body who can say: "Yes, I hear, and it is my task to fix the problem".

My understanding is that you see this as the role of the Ombudsman. I do
disagree. The Ombudsman has a role, that is rather the one of an auditor,
who points out problems and makes recommendations, but remains in the field
of "respect of the procedures". If we believe that one of the parties (the
consumers) are not protected enough, we need to find a mechanism to protect
them better by creating a "consumer protection" body, rather than to ask
somebody that has an "above the parties" role to take a tilted approach to
make up for a different problem.

In simple words, if in a match between to sport teams one is weaker, I can
see the approach of strengthening the team as a healthy solution. To ask the
referee to take the defense of the weaker team is, IMHO, an unhealthy
solution, although it might be appealing to some (and used in practice quite
often).

Regards,
Roberto