ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Escrowing Proxy Data instead of True Registrant Data

  • To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Escrowing Proxy Data instead of True Registrant Data
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 06:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=Q9d53Yv396JFNlFVwAMTE26XsEsU1mYMGfAeOmCn2Nwz7X40EmdZGKAnMDISVZFRPJ7amAk9XtMd5fOyT19AddNs2nItQn4nwvi0bksLOMGlv5NrVB1EpqKzCZpkpT+F2Gh1PelCNwGwHaaXNpDA2omuJOIQt1PhG/74rtBeyWw=;
  • In-reply-to: <464E32EA.4040002@cavebear.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Can't there be a certifiable Buffet style ala carte. And then the audit system. Although I think quarterly SEC type reports would satisfy this burden. It does allow for a bit of the inmates running the asylum but it is doable with less bureaucracy and reasonable accountability. 
   
  Especially in light of Jefseys comments I think this method would be more practically palatable.
   
  Eric

Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
I'm not disagreeing with you that the it is in the interests of domain 
name registrants to have registration systems that do not lose 
registration data in the case of a catastrophe.

However, do we want a centrally designed system of uniform design (one 
size fits all)? Or do we want to allow flexibility.

What I have suggested is rather than having mandate a singular escrow 
system - something they have been rather bad at establishing - we 
require registries and registrars to provide a yearly statement from an 
independent, competent business practices auditor that attests to 
certain things. In particularly the yearly statement would have to 
certify that the registry or registrar has in place, in writing, active 
and practiced data protection and retention practices sufficient to 
allow the registrar/registry or a successor in interest to revive the 
registration data and the association of that data with customers. This 
could, if desired be backed by third party beneficary status to 
customers, a bond or guarantee in case of non-performance, and a right 
under which ICANN could require a demonstration that the recovery 
process actually works.

That way the registrars and registries could pick whatever system suits 
them best.

A monolithic escrow system means that we continue to wait for ICANN. 
Moreover, a monolithic system further entrenches the rather arbitrary 
business model that ICANN arbitrarily imposes upon the DNS industry.

ICANN can still publish an escrow model and offer to act as an agent to 
hold the data. And if some registrars find that useful they can use it 
and advertise to potential customers that they use the ICANN escrow 
system. Then customers can vote with their dollars whether they want to 
use registrars that use ICANN escrow of ones that have other, but 
certified, methods of business asset preservation.

--karl--





       
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>