ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

Re: [registrars] Registrar Resolution


I think the "fly-by-night" description is completely unneeded and gratuitous. There is no generally accepted definition of that term and I think it can be misconstrued as a slight against smaller registrars, or in the worst case as the RC trying to make an argument that smaller registrars can not be trusted. Any business entity, large or small, ethical or unethical, can fold for a variety of reasons.

I's sure that many of us can recall the "bad acts" of registrar industry leaders. So how about we just drop the "fly by night" stuff, and say something like:

Whereas, registrants must be protected against the potential bad acts of
registries and registrars;

Also, what has this clause got to do with anything:

Whereas, registrars only succeed if they provide valuable services to
their customers;

I don't see that as relevant or a valuable addition to the resolution. Every time the resolution strays off topic it looses some of it's impact. Also, the fly-by-night stuff makes an unwarranted implication. I ask that the resolution be changed accordingly.

Thanks...

Jim





--On Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:07 AM -0700 Robert Birkner <robertb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------

Whereas, registrars only succeed if they provide valuable services to
their customers;



Whereas, registrants must be protected against the potential bad acts of
“fly-by-night” registries and registrars;



Whereas, it is incumbent on ICANN to protect registrants against the
potential bad acts of “fly-by-night” gTLD registries and registrars;



Whereas, ICANN Staff has recently formulated a new Compliance Program for
gTLD Registries and Registrars;



Whereas, ICANN Staff has recently announced its success in furthering a
data escrow requirement for gTLD registries
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-05mar07.htm;



Whereas, ICANN Staff has not yet specified a schedule, terms, or a format
of a data escrow requirement for gTLD registrars;



Whereas, many registrars currently secure registrant and domain name data
through various back-up methods, but that this practice is by no means
uniform or compulsory across all accredited registrars;



Whereas, the various back-up methods used by registrars may not be
sufficient in all cases to assist ICANN Staff in recovering such data in
the event of registrar business failure; and



Whereas, recent events have highlighted the need for a registrar data
escrow program and enhanced compliance efforts with regard to
requirements in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.



Be it resolved that the undersigned registrars call for ICANN Staff to
work with the ICANN Registrar Constituency to finalize the terms of a
gTLD registrar data escrow program; and



Be it further resolved that the undersigned registrars call for ICANN
Staff to work with the ICANN Registrar Constituency to improve the
effectiveness of the ICANN Compliance Program for gTLD Registrars.





*******************************
James W. Archer
CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
http://www.RegistrationTek.com




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