RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] action item from the last call -- defining consequences

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Paul. IMHO, the compliance escalation issue is broader than
just IRTP and if dealt with it should be done independent of this PDP.
But I think Paul makes a good point about the bully pulpit.

So my advice is to keep it simple. When in practice it can monitored for
issues that may need to be addressed.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] action item from the last call --
> defining consequences
> From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 25, 2011 8:27 am
> To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,       
> "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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...
> 
> Regards, P
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon
> :: Blacknight
> 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 --
> defining consequences
> 
> 
> Mikey
> 
> 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? 
> 
> But how?
> 
> 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
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://blacknight.mobi/
> http://mneylon.tel
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> US: 213-233-1612 
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
> Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845