Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group

[Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny, and Everyone

Just to pick up on both Danny's point and on the reference made by  
Beau (Team A) when he referred to the auDA Code of Practice as a  
starting point.
The way the Australian Code of Practice is enforceable is through the  
Australian version of the RAA - see http://www.auda.org.au/policies/ 
auda-2009-02/
Specifically, The Oz version of the RAA requires that Registrars must  
comply with auDA published policies (clause 7.2) and also comply with  
a Code of Practice (Clause 7.4) - with the statement that both form  
part of the agreement itself and are enforceable through auDA's power  
to suspend or terminate a Registrar's accreditation (Clause 4,2,  
referencing Clause 23.1)
In ICANN's RAA, there is also a reference to a Code of Practice, so  
the ICANN structure is there.  My question to Danny and others - will  
there be a similar structure for our 'Rights' document so that  it  
will be similarly enforceable.  And therefore, will this assist the  
Compliance Department in enforcing policies that are on the books now  
(let alone what this group creates) but seemingly not enforced?
Kind regards

Holly Raiche
Executive Director,
Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mob: 0412 688 544
Ph: (02) 9436 2149

The Internet is For Everyone

On 23/10/2009, at 11:23 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

> Doug,
>
> Thank you for this advisory.  I look forward to a better  
> understanding of those contractual provisions that are deemed to be  
> "hard to enforce".
> For several years now, registrants have been complaining (both  
> anecdotally and in writing to the Compliance Department) that a  
> major registrar has been violating the terms of the Consensus  
> Policy on Transfers (even after the Staff publication of the 3  
> April '08 Registrar Advisory Concerning the Inter-Registrar  
> Transfer Policy) by refusing to allow transfers subsequent to a  
> WHOIS update.
> So let me ask:  When we have a clear consensus policy supplemented  
> by a clear advisory and yet we see that a problem is *still*  
> ongoing, what exactly are we to fault and/or how should the  
> situation best be addressed?
> (1)  Is there some lack of clarity in the consensus policy and/or  
> advisory language?
> (2)  Are there no provisions by way of which ICANN can take action?
> (3)  Is the Compliance Department simply unwilling to take action  
> against a major player?
> Just today, another such complaint emerged -- please see http:// 
> www.nullamatix.com/godaddy-nightmare-express-written-objection-to- 
> transfe/
> If we are to assist in facilitating ICANN's contractual compliance  
> initiatives it would be helpful to understand (using this  
> particular example) the nature of the roadblocks that the  
> compliance team is running into.
> Looking forward to any clarifications that may be offered,
>
> Danny Younger