RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] action item from the last call -- defining consequences
- To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] action item from the last call -- defining consequences
- From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:27:27 -0400
I do not see the kinds of non-compliance penalties suggested by the RySG
or others (see Public Comment Review Tool items #22-26) in any of the
current Consensus Policies.
In fact, the community has been grappling for years with an "escalation
path" for registrar non-compliance with the RAA and/or Consensus
Policies. While some additional Compliance tools - short of the
"nuclear option" of revoking a registrar's accreditation - were added in
the 2009 RAA, there has been no agreement on any series of steps (to
include monetary fines).
In my opinion, it is not appropriate to introduce such unparalleled
measures via a process like the IRTP, especially for non-compliance with
something new and untested like the EAC.
I'm in agreement with Michele: let's keep it simple. If the WG needs
ideas, let's reach out now and involve ICANN Compliance. We also should
get the Registrar Liaison to weigh in.
Honestly, the most effective remediation likely will be the bully pulpit
of the Liaison and Compliance staffs contacting a recalcitrant registrar
and reminding them of their Consensus Policy obligations. If a
registrar ignores such direct reminders, Compliance can threaten a
breach letter. Realistically, few registrars will let things go that
far and risk losing their accreditation. Those that do probably
shouldn't be in the registration business anyway...
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 2:10 PM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx List
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] action item from the last call --
Thanks for your efforts with all this - it is appreciated :)
On 24 Apr 2011, at 18:10, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> hi all,
> i'm chipping away at a new draft of the EAC stuff (and an FAQ to go
with it) and came to the point in our phone discussion where we were
working on what the consequences would be when a response is not
received in the required timeframe.
> we have one very clear consequence -- the transfer-undo. but during
our discussion we contemplated a broader range of consequences and
escalation, as per the request made by the Registries in their comments.
> it was late in the call and we decided to punt that question to the
list. so here we are.
> anybody got any thoughts on this topic? i'm fine just leaving the
consequence at the transfer-undo.
A key thing is to try and keep it very simple, but obviously if the
registrar is repeatedly unresponsive there should be consequences.
Reporting them to ICANN compliance?
To the best of my knowledge there is no "channel" for contracted parties
to report issues to ICANN / compliance beyond either using the public
"issue report" form or emailing them directly. The problem with both
methods is that there is no transparency in terms of "tracking" ie. you
submit and then it goes into a black hole
Mr Michele Neylon
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845