[ga] Re: [RAA-WG] Draft Responses to CEO Questions - Food for thought

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Debbie and all,

  I am afraid your food would starve my brain and the same abuses
would still remain.  < nice bit of poetry without even trying to, eh? >

  The remainder of my response is interspersed below.

Debbie Garside wrote:

>    Hi All
>
> A few quick thoughts based on Paul Twomey's questions to get the
> discussion
> going.  I reserve the right to change my views at any time...
> especially
> when I receive an actual copy of the RAA and accompanying policies :-)
>
> Purpose of Register Accreditation Policy and Agreement
> What is the primary purpose of the Registration Accreditation
> Agreement? Is
> it a compliance tool? If so how can it be strengthened to protect
> registrants?
>
> Primary purpose is to establish rules for accreditation in order that
> applicant registrars can be assessed.  It should be a compliance tool
> linked
> to an assessment process.  It can be strengthened by introducing
> conformity
> assessment procedures that are conducted annually.

Good idea here.  Bi annually would be better and more direct
time effective to addressing existing or reported abuses by registrants.

A year is a long time to wait for a resolution to what is often a
simple problem and/or abuse.

Secondly the form and granularity of the assessment procedures is a
huge key here if success or perceived success by the registrant is to be

achieved and is the goal.

>
>
>
>
> Rating of Registrars
> How should ICANN and/or the registrar constituency encourage a system
> that
> rates registrars according to customer service and performance and
> should
> this be available to registrants?
>
> Registrars should be rated according to an externally conducted
> conformity
> assessment process (for instance A - E).  Registrars who receive
> conformity
> assessments of D or less are given warning notice and may be
> suspended/struck out if performance is not improved within 6 months
> (resulting in two conformity assessments in one year).  Performance
> indicators (conformity assessment grade) should be made publicly
> available.

Warning notices are a nicety, and of course politically correct, but
historically rarely have very much if any effect.  Example: RegistryFly.

ICANN issued warnings, and still those folks at RegistryFly, did
as they pleased.

6 months for compliance is far too long for most registrants whom
may or are effected.  20 working days is more like it. If it were
me, I'd give 5 working days to comply or loose there accreditation
on the 6th day, no exceptions.

>
>
>
> Affiliated Registrars / Group ownership
> Affiliated registrars have common ownership or control. What is the
> best
> mechanism for ICANN to hold affiliated registrars accountable for an
> affiliate's actions?
>
> ALL registrars, whether affiliated or group, should undergo conformity
>
> assessment.  Affiliated registrars are accountable and this will thus
> ensure
> that an affiliate acts appropriately.

Agreed here.

>
>
>
> Additional compliance enforcement tools
> Stronger compliance tools need to be included in any reform to the
> RAA. What
> are those tools? Do they encompass liquidated damages? Should
> registrars be
> able to be suspended more readily? Are there other options? What are
> the
> mechanisms that allow such options to be enforced quickly?
>
> International or industry standards for conformity assessment should
> be
> established.  If domain names are held by the registrants there would
> not be
> such a problem. This needs to be placed into new rules.  This could
> allow
> for blanket notifications when problems occur and the ability for
> registrants to place their domains with other registrars (list being
> proffered with assessment grades) within 48 hours.  Registrars should
> be
> suspended when they do not conform - rules to be established.
> Complaints
> from at large community mechanism for when a registrar is consistently
>
> failing may invoke immediate conformity assessment by governing body
> which
> may result in the registrar avoiding suspension - rules need to be
> established (e.g. indicator may be that complaint level rises
> sharply).
> Governing body needs to take interim control when Registrar fails.

Agreed here also as long as the rules are enforceable and/or meet the
rule of US law accordingly.

>
>
>
> Transfer policy
> What elements of the transfer policy need to be reformed? Should
> registrants
> have an alternative to their current registrar for the issuing of
> authcodes
> and the unlocking of them? Should ICANN or another entity be able to
> do
> this?
>
> Registrants should be in control of issuing authcodes and unlocking
> them.
> Domain ownership is only passed to the registrants upon payment of the
>
> registrars invoice. Dispute mechanism required.

Agreed here as well.

>
>
>
> Registrar operator skill testing
> How is it possible to assess registrar skills and to train registrars
> to a
> common standard of performance upon which registrants can rely?
>
> Industry service standard with conformity assessment process.
>
> Accreditation by purchase
> It is possible for companies to 'avoid' accreditation application
> process by
> buying a registrar. How can abuse of this loophole be stopped?
>
> Conformity Assessment conducted annually

Bi annually is far better and more accountable.

>
>
> Proxy registrations
> There needs to be an examination of proxy registrations in light of
> difficulties faced in registrar data recovery. What is the balance
> between
> privacy and disclosure?
>
> Policy on data security and backup.  Dispute resolution incorporated
> that
> would give control of data to an interim governing body (such as
> ICANN)

Yes, ICANN only must be held responsible for this function and data
at no additional cost to any registrant now or in the future.  Also a
data recovery ability by any registrant online for any and all archived
data for his/her or their domain name or names at any time should
be mandatory. Only a registrant, a registrants decedent, or a law
enforcement agency with a subpoena may have any access or
recover said archived or real time registration data.

>
>
>
> Reseller liability under RAA
> What tools are needed to ensure better accountability by resellers to
> registrants?
>
> A reseller body should be established.  Resellers should be governed
> by the
> same rules as registrars and register to a reseller body that would
> disseminate information on best practice.  All resellers/registrars
> should
> publish rules openly.

Rules here must be set by or agreed to on a case by case basis by
registrant.

>
>
>
> Registrar data escrow
> What data needs to be escrowed? If implementation needs to move
> faster,
> greater resource allocation is required. What level of resourcing is
> necessary?
>
>
> Clarification of ICANN's responsibilities and the options available to
>
> registrants
> ICANN recently posted a guide for registrants on its website but
> additional
> consumer options (outside ICANN) should be identified for and provided
> to
> registrants. Is there a need for a new entity to assist customers and
> intervene on behalf of their concerns?
>
> Yes.  New entity required.  Professional body for
> registrars/resellers.

And a Professional body of registrants whom must approve any and
all considerations before enactment.

>
>
>  best
>
> Debbie Garside
> Managing Director
>
> ICT Marketing Ltd
> Corner House
> Barn Street
> Haverfordwest
> Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW
> Wales UK
>
> Tel: 0044 1437 766441
> Fax: 0044 1437 766173
>
> Web: http://www.ictmarketing.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>    Part 1.2       Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>               Encoding: 7bit

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"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
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827