RE: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed. All valid issues we'll also consider before selecting ICANN's
agent or another. And the separation issue should likely be covered
whether the agent is currently accredited as a registrar or not, since
that could obviously change.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow
From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, August 17, 2007 8:58 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,  <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


I am reserving my comments on the escrow program and on Iron Mountain
until a draft contract is available for review. I appreciate that Iron
Mountain has provided answers to a questionnaire about how it would
protect our customer data and how it would address the perceived
conflict or interest situation, but we don't know how that will
translate into a contract. Will Iron Mountain agree contractually to
some sort of structural separation between its registrar business and
this escrow arrangement? What contractual warranties will Iron Mountain
provide that it will protect our customer data and cover us in case of a
breach? Similarly, if ICANN wants to access the data for checking
purposes, what contractual warranties and protections will it provide to
registrars in order to give us comfort that our customer data will be
protected? Perhaps ICANN should be negotiating with the top two bidders
to ensure that the contract is as competitive as possible.

Thanks.

Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:46 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow

Larry, appreciate your concerns.

1) Most likely, yes. Escrowing the beneficial user data behind
private/proxied registrations is not required under the currently
proposed process. But two points about that. First, speaking just for Go
Daddy, while there are a large number of our domain names registered
through Domains by Proxy the majority are not. Second, Domains by Proxy
is willing to escrow the beneficial user data but not likely under the
standard Escrow agreement. So that will be discussed with ICANN and
hopefully worked out soon. And after our experience with assuming the
RegisterFly names, I hope other registrars who offer private/proxied
registrations will consider it as well.

2) You're assuming that Iron Mountain is currently mining data? Our
records show no evidence of that at all. I would suggest that before
making any judgement you look closely at who Iron Mountain is how
they've built their publicly traded company on a worldwide reputation of
trust and security. Corp. Domain management is a small part of their
overall business. It's hard to imagine them sacrificing that reputation
for what little they might gain from data that is otherwise public
anyway.

3) I doubt that ICANN can select a provider that all registrars will be
100% happy with. So there is no requirement to use ICANN's selected
agent. Some are going to use their own agent regardless. Is Iron
Mountain more of a risk just because they are accredited any more so
than another agent who isn't? You may have a different answer to that
than we do. Fortunately, we'll all have a choice.

Bottom line, registrars are under fire right now due to recent events.
We need to get this escrow thing figured out and implemented. If we
delay with the idea that we need a process that 100% of us are 100%
happy with it will never get done.


Tim