Re: [gnso-frn-dt] Responses from staff

[Paul Diaz <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>]

What does ICANN have in place to prevent an existing accredited registrar (or 
its resellers) from sending fake renewal notices?  The second answer seems to 
hint that ICANN Compliance would invoke RAA 2.1 to cure such inappropriate 
behavior.  Will ICANN state this explicitly/publicly?

Clarity is important as there's really no precedent for such action - even 
though it's well-understood that a select few registrars have allowed/condoned 
resellers' fake renewal notices.  I'm aware of some nascent Compliance 
initiatives, and suggest that this is a good opportunity for ICANN to 
demonstrate organizational maturity through enforcement of its contracts as 
well as accountability to end users.

Regards,

Paul Diaz
Public Interest Registry

On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Marika Konings wrote:

Dear All,

Please find below the feedback from staff in relation to the questions posed by 
the drafting team. Let me know if you have any questions / comments, or we can 
discuss in further detail during our next meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

============================

Question: What measures, if any, are in place as part of the current registrar 
accreditation policy to prevent known offenders of sending fake renewal notices 
to become an ICANN accredited registrar?

Response: ICANN has recently modified the accreditation application process to 
ask for and check into more information about the background of applicants. The 
application and supporting documents submitted by the applicant have to show 
that it is eligible for accreditation as per Section II.A of the Statement of 
Registrar Accreditation Policy 
(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html#IIA), which means 
that ICANN would reject an application if the applicant cannot prove that it is 
eligible or if ICANN has any evidence that it isn't eligible.

Furthermore ICANN would also reject an application if the applicant and/or any 
of its officers, directors, manager or any person or entity owning (or 
beneficially owning) at least 5% percent of the applicant is concerned by any 
reason for ineligibility as per Section II.B of the Statement of Registrar 
Accreditation Policy. One of these reasons is: "within the past ten years, has 
been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, 
or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary 
duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN deemed as 
the substantive equivalent of any of these".

Question: As at first sight the issue of fake renewal notices seems to be 
mainly linked to resellers, is there anything in the new RAA (2009 RAA) that 
would provide more or better protections to address theissue of fake renewal 
notices if these are sent by resellers?

Response: the 2009 RAA modifications did not directly address fake renewal 
notices. Staff could check back to the 2009 suggested amendment topics to see 
if anyone even raised this issue back then. However, registrars are fully 
responsible for complying with every provision of the RAA, and the transfer 
policy, and applicable laws, for every registration / renewal / transfer that 
they make, whether they customer deals with the registrar directly or through 
an intermediary/agent/reseller.

If any registration / renewal / transfer is processed in violation of the 
agreement / policy (or applicable laws), thenICANN should be able to hold the 
registrar fully accountable. That allegedly fake renewal notices are supposedly 
linked mainly to resellers does not provide any safe harbor for any 
registration / renewal / transfer processed by any registrar. It should be 
taken into account that a reseller cannot process aregistration, renewal or 
transfer except for through an accredited registrar.