Improving Accountability & Transparency - RSEP

["Chris Chaplow" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ATRT2

 

Improving Accountability & Transparency

 

Q2. Are there other questions we should be asking consistent with the mandate 
of the ATRT?
What are those questions? How would you answer those questions?

 

I wish to express concern of the Accountability & Transparency of the RSEP
 <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep> 
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep

 

There is no ICANN member of Staff to oversee the implementation  after a RSEP 
request is board approved and the registry contract amended.
This leaves a Registry free to make implementation decisions unilaterally.

The amended registry contracts do not impose any specific reporting requirement 
or transparency requirements in relation to the activity or progress of the 
RSEP implementation. There is no feedback loop for community to judge future 
requests. 

 

There is a  public comment period for RSEP.  This includes publication of the 
draft contract amendment.  

When the actual  signed contract amendment is later published,  in all/most 
cases it is identical to draft. 

This suggest that the public comments were ignored.   

 

To give a particular example in one RSEP that I have followed closely as 
applicant, I refer ARRT2  to Request 208008  “Phased Equitable Reallocation of 
Non-Compliant .INFO Sunrise Domain Names”    
<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep?page=4> 
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep?page=4

 

The public comment that was ignored in the approval and also in the 
implementation stated: “One of my concerns with this proposal is that without 
there being a certain degree of transparency there is very little to stop the 
registry operator from  putting a lot of the names up for auction directly.” 
See   <http://forum.icann.org/lists/info-sunrise-amendment/msg00001.html> 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/info-sunrise-amendment/msg00001.html

 

Did ICANN approve the Terms and Conditions of the registry drafted FRP 
Application form?    

This would have been an opportunity to incorporate this public comment? 

See: http://info.info/system/files/INFO_Sunrise_RFP_Application26JAN2010v5.doc

 

This comment turned out to be insightful since only 85 of 1231 names were 
allocated under the Phase 1: Request for Proposals (RFP) phase.  

The Registry therefore unilaterally discarded  (250€)   RFP¹s in order to gain 
financial advantage by moving into the Phase 2:   Auction phase.

See:  <http://info.info/sunrise-dispute-reallocation> 
http://info.info/sunrise-dispute-reallocation   (85) and

http://info.info/system/files/INFO_sunrise_domain_reallocation_names_4NOV2009.txt
 (1231)

 

Submitted respectfully,

Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucia.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail:  <mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web:  <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com
Information about Andalucia, Spain.