RE: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow

[<ricardo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Fellows:

After read the atached letter for me its clear that there is a HUGE conflict
of interest. An ICANN accredited Registrar to escrow other Registrars ? No,
sorry. Even with a very specific confidentiality contract and policy... we
might opt for a diff provider...

Could you redirect this email to Mike cc Kurt?

Are the other proposals so weak ???

Best Regards,

Ricardo Vaz Monteiro
Nomer.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: quinta-feira, 9 de agosto de 2007 11:12
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow


Registrars:

The following is an e-mail message from Kurt Pritz regarding ICANN's
data escrow program.  It appears that ICANN staff has selected Iron
Mountain as the ICANN preferred provider pending final comments and a
contract.  Because a division of Iron Mountain actually is an accredited
registrar, it has supplied -- at ICANN's request -- the attached
document that shows how it proposes to address any conflicts of interest
concerns.  I should note that we all have a choice of whether to use the
ICANN provider (at ICANN's expense) or select an escrow provider of our
choosing (at our expense) that is approved by ICANN.

Please provide any comments to the list or directly to Kurt or Mike
Zupke.

Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:pritz@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 6:58 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Mike Zupke; Tim Cole
Subject: Information regarding Data Escrow

Jon:

In response to discussions with the Registrar Constituency regarding
data escrow services, please provide the attached document to the
constituency members for their review and information.

After analysis of seven responses to an RFP for the provision of data
escrow services, Iron Mountain has emerged as the most suitable
candidate. There were other competent proposals but, balancing the
criteria provided in the RFP, ICANN has begun negotiations with Iron
Mountain. Other candidates have been informed that the process is not
yet closed but these negotiations have started.

ICANN understood concerns voiced in the RC meeting regarding
selection of an accredited registrar for this task. Given those
concerns (and in accordance with best practices anyway) we set out to
understand all potential conflicts of interest that might exist for
Iron Mountain. ICANN sent, and Iron Mountain returned for
distribution to the constituency, the attached questionnaire. We
think the responses are open and frank. We also believe that these
responses, the fact that Iron Mountain presently escrows some
registrar data, and the fact that Iron Mountain's business model is
predicated on the trust that confidential data will not be compromised
demonstrate its suitability as a potential service provider. We
understand that some registrars may opt for a different provider for
various reasons but hope that those who make that choice understand
that this appears now to be the best selection for ICANN at this time.

I hope this is helpful. If there are questions or comments from
constituency members, please have them forwarded directly to Mike
Zupke or me.

As an aside, you will also notice a second section to the
questionnaire regarding contingency, disaster and failure planning.
We added this because it was thought that the original RFP did not
solicit sufficient information in this regard.

Kurt Pritz

ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, #330
Marina del Rey. CA  90292

+1.310.301.5809 (office)
+1.310.400.4184 (mobile)