[gnso-vi-feb10] Fw: Contractual Compliance Newsletter - Issue 10 (October 2010)

["Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron, Mikey, & Roberto :

Further to my comment on the chat
Here is the latest compliance newsletter.
Check out 6. recent staff changes.
So there are only four staff remaining , temporarily reporting to Kurt Pritz 
it seems.
Apart from a replacement for David Giza , there would need to be a 
substantial increase in staffing levels - to plan for, implement a new 
compliance strategy, to be ready for 500 potential / budgeted new 
applications.
Very productive call tonight.

My concluding point would be: ( following email acknowledgement from the 
Board to my email on VI / VS issues & suggestions moving forward , sent pre 
Norway)
Would the Board ( as promised) give the VI WG ( via the GNSO)
1. indications as to a timeframe for our future work
2. any "topics " that the Board wishes the VI WG to immediately continue to 
pursue further ( in the hope that we can reach a consensus , for inclusion 
( at a later date) in the Final Applicant Guidebook ,(which I understand 
will be published by mid November  ))
Phil

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ICANN Contractual Compliance Newsletter" <compliance@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 1:09 AM
Subject: Contractual Compliance Newsletter - Issue 10 (October 2010)


> Contractual Compliance Newsletter
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> http://www.icann.org/
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/
>
> Issue 10 - October 2010
>
> ___________________________________________________________
>
>
> In This Issue
>
> 1. UDRP Compliance Update
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-201010-en.htm#1
>
> 2. Registrar Compliance with Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-201010-en.htm#2
>
> 3. Contractual Compliance Advisories
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-201010-en.htm#3
>
> 4. Outreach Efforts
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-201010-en.htm#4
>
> 5. Consumer Complaint Update
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-201010-en.htm#5
>
> 6. Recent Staff Changes
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-201010-en.htm#6
>
> 7. Contacts
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-201010-en.htm#7
>
>
> Image of Cartagena, Colombia: 
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/images/cartagena39-500x205-22oct10.png
> Caption: Cartagena, Colombia: Location of ICANN’s upcoming 39th 
> International Meeting
> Purpose:
>
> This Newsletter is to inform readers and encourage community dialogue 
> regarding ICANN’s contractual compliance program. For more information 
> please see link to past newsletter archive: 
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/newsletter/
>
> Important Updates:
>
> The ICANN Registrant Protection Performance tracker has been updated. Go 
> to https://charts.icann.org/public/ and click on Registrant Protection to 
> see how ICANN’s Contractual Compliance department has been working for 
> you.
>
> Feedback:
>
> We are soliciting questions/topic ideas that you would like to see 
> reported in future newsletters. Please forward all questions/topic ideas 
> to: compliance@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Schedule Change:
>
> The Contractual Compliance Newsletter moved from a monthly to a quarterly 
> publication schedule to provide readers with more information about 
> contractual compliance matters. We are taking the additional time to 
> gather more facts and publish more concentrated issues on a quarterly 
> basis.
>
> 1. UDRP Compliance Update
>
> Image of Complaints for Failure to Implement UDRP Decisions:
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/images/udrp-compliance-update-600x377-22oct10.png
>
> ICANN is pleased to report an upward trend in registrar compliance with 
> the UDRP. Throughout the latter part of 2009 and continuing through July 
> 2010, ICANN observed fewer complaints concerning registrars failing to 
> implement UDRP decisions. At the same time, the number of UDRP decisions 
> increased or remained steady. ICANN tracks cases in which prevailing 
> complainants accuse registrars of failure to implement Provider decisions. 
> During the first seven months of calendar year 2010, ICANN received two to 
> four of these complaints per month. This is down from data from January 
> 2009 through July 2009, when ICANN received on average seven to twelve of 
> such complaints per month.
> ICANN attributes the decrease in complaints to several factors. Some 
> factors include registrar outreach and education, enhanced compliance 
> tools such as the UDRP Intake Response System, and stricter monitoring and 
> enforcement of UDRP compliance.
> When ICANN is made aware of UDRP noncompliance, ICANN immediately contacts 
> the concerned registrar. During this initial contact, ICANN requests the 
> registrar provide data to justify not implementing the decision. In cases 
> in which the registrar cannot justify its position, usually this contact 
> is sufficient to bring the registrar into compliance. If not, ICANN sends 
> a formal escalated compliance notice. In rare instances when registrars 
> still fail to comply, ICANN issues a breach notice to the registrar. 
> Failing to remedy a breach notice for failure to comply with the UDRP is a 
> strong factor in favor of terminating a Registrar Accreditation Agreement 
> between ICANN and the registrar.
> ICANN also receives complaints alleging a registrar failed to implement a 
> decision, when the registrar has in fact transferred the name to the 
> prevailing complainant. Often the complainant is seeking to transfer the 
> name to another registrar, but has not communicated that to the registrar. 
> If a prevailing complainant seeks to transfer a name, then the complainant 
> should notify the registrar and follow the Policy on Transfer of 
> Registrations between Registrars (also known as the Inter-Registrar 
> Transfer Policy) available at: 
> http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm
> ICANN looks forward to continuous improvement in registrar compliance with 
> the UDRP.
>
> 2. Registrar Compliance with Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
>
> Transfer problems most consistently top all consumer complaints received 
> by ICANN. Usually, they represent 20-30 percent of complaints that ICANN 
> processes. To address this issue, an IRTP Audit Plan was designed and 
> developed by Contractual Compliance with input and feedback from a number 
> of key registrar representatives and various ICANN departments and a beta 
> test on the IRTP Audit Plan was conducted in May 2010.
> Objectives:
>
> The primary purpose of the beta audit is to determine if the IRTP Audit 
> Plan is methodologically and operationally sound. It was also designed to:
> * Gain a better understanding of the actual transfer problems encountered 
> by consumers;
> * Gauge the level of registrar compliance with the IRTP; and
> * Raise registrar awareness of their obligations under the transfer policy 
> and encourage future compliance.
> Audit notices were sent to registrars who were subject to the beta-audit 
> by both email and fax. A copy of the IRPT Audit Plan was attached to the 
> audit notice.
> Methodology:
>
> Due to the vast number of transfers occurring each month and the large 
> number of registrars involved, it was not feasible to examine each 
> transfer transaction or each registrar’s transfer practices. Instead, 
> random selection mechanisms were used to select four groups of registrars 
> to be audited:
> 1. Transfer-losing-registrars with NACK rates exceeding 20% (maximum of 10 
> registrars)
> 2. Transfer-gaining-registrars with NACK rates exceeding 40% (maximum of 5 
> registrars)
> 3. Five registrars who received the most complaints by number
> 4. Five registrars who received the most complaints by ratio ( see the 
> calculation set out in the IRTP Audit Plan)
> Selection of groups 1 & 2 registrars was based on VeriSign’s transactional 
> report for the month of December 2009, while selection of groups 3 & 4 
> registrars was based on data from ICANN’s C-ticket system for the month of 
> March 2010. Using these two sets of data and the selection mechanisms, a 
> total of 17 registrars were subject to the beta audit.
> The total number of domain names sponsored by these 17 registrars was 
> 71,491,626 (this represents 63% of total gTLD registrations of 
> 113,802,218, as of 31 May 2010).
> Findings:
>
> Eight registrars provided the information on or before the deadline of 24 
> May 2010, while others required one or two reminders. By 4 June 2010 all 
> provided the information requested. All but one registrar were requested 
> to provide ICANN with additional clarifications or information.
> The table here is a summary of the findings based on the 4 registrar 
> groups:
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-201010-en.htm#table
>
> A registrar is deemed compliant if each of its transfer transactions that 
> were subject to the audit was considered in compliance with the IRTP.
> Of 119 transfer transactions reviewed, 27 were deemed non-compliant with 
> the IRTP. This translates to 77% of transactions being compliant.
> Most transfer-related complaints that were subject to the beta audit 
> concerned either delays/inabilities to obtain the AuthInfo Code, or 
> domains still locked by the registrar of record. The problems seem more 
> prevalent when resellers are involved.
> Based on the response provided by groups 3 & 4 registrars, ICANN noted 
> that some of the delays were caused by authentication or validation 
> processes employed by registrars. ICANN recognizes the need for 
> authentication of the Registered Name Holder who requested the AutoInfo 
> Code, but registrars must also be mindful of their obligation to provide 
> the Code within five calendar days of the initial request.
> They must also ensure that they do “not employ any mechanism for complying 
> with a Registered Name Holder's request to obtain the applicable “AuthInfo 
> Code” that is more restrictive than the mechanisms used for changing any 
> aspect of the Registered Name Holder's contact or name server information” 
> (see paragraph 5 of the IRTP).
> Follow-up Actions:
>
> ICANN has stated in its beta audit notice to registrars that “the findings 
> of these beta-test audits are for information only and will not be used as 
> the basis for enforcement action.”
> Accordingly, ICANN does not intend to take “formal” compliance or 
> enforcement action against those registrars that are deemed non-compliant 
> with the IRTP or the RAA but Contractual Compliance staff has informed 
> them of their non-compliance and worked with them to help bringing them 
> into compliance with their IRTP obligations.
> In addition, the beta audit has alerted a number of registrars about the 
> deficiencies in their business practices and processes. Additional 
> investigations may occur. The beta-audit has prompted a number of 
> registrars to take the initiative of reviewing and/or improving their 
> transfer practices.
> Below are some of the comments received from registrars:
>
> Comment from a group 1 registrar:
>
> “Your beta testing request alerted us to the high rate of Nack in December 
> 2009 …our use of Nacking was not compliant with ICANN IRTP in December 
> 2009. We have now reviewed our current procedures in order to correct this 
> situation.”
> Comments from two group 2 registrars:
>
> “..., this process has highlighted to me some weaknesses in how we 
> maintain this information.”
> “The audit exercise has highlighted a couple of issues for us:
>
> * The way that our data records are labeled (we gave you invalid details 
> as a result)
> * The way that our system automatically re-attempts to transfer a domain 
> that has been NACKed. (We shouldn’t be doing this).
> I am actively addressing both of these issues within our organization to 
> rectify immediately. ”
> Comments from two group 3 registrars:
>
> “We have paid close attention to this matter and discussed the measures to 
> let our transfer policy to comply with the ICANN Inter-Registrar Transfer 
> Policy. There may be a period for us to make a new transfer policy and 
> adjust our system.”
> “If our transfer process as described above needs change or improvement, 
> please let us know and we will do our upmost to become compliant as soon 
> as possible.”
> Comment from a group 4 registrar:
>
> “We will introduce a “3 strikes, you are out reseller policy” to make sure 
> our resellers respond to customers’ requests for EPP codes in time, as 
> required by the IRTP.”
> Further changes to IRTP Audit Plan after the beta audit and formal audits:
>
> A registrar in group 1 suggested some changes to the requested 
> documents/information (as set out in the IRTP Audit Plan). ICANN will 
> incorporate those suggestions, in addition to some changes for clarity in 
> light of registrars’ responses to the beta audit. ICANN plans to conduct 
> two rounds of formal audit in accordance with the updated IRTP Audit Plan, 
> with one during the remainder of 2010 and one in the first half of 2011.
>
> 3. Contractual Compliance Advisories
>
> In order to help registries and registrars understand their contractual 
> obligations, this newsletter will occasionally include advisory 
> information intended to clarify RAA and Registry Agreement provisions.
> For more information please see link to the RAA: 
> http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm
> Updating Public and Primary Contact Information
>
> * Section 3.16 of the RAA requires registrars to provide on their web 
> sites accurate contact details, including a valid email and mailing 
> address.
> * Section 5.11 of the RAA states that all primary contact information 
> updates must be made in writing and faxed, delivered in person, or sent 
> via an internationally recognized courier service to ICANN.
> It is important for registrars to keep their primary and public contact 
> information up-to-date. Registrars can update their public contact 
> information online by logging into the ICANN registrar database at: 
> https://radar.icann.org
> Primary contact information cannot be updated online and must be done in 
> writing, using a form available when registrars log into the registrar 
> database.
>
> 4. Outreach Efforts
>
> Image of World Map: 
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/images/outreach-efforts-658x327-22oct10.png
> PAST EVENTS:
>
> Asia Pacific:
>
> Pam Little, Senior Director, Asia Pacific attended the INET Asia Regional 
> Conference held in Hong Kong on 13-14 April 2010. The theme of the 
> conference was “the opportunities and challenges in the next generation 
> Internet.” After attending the conference, Pam travelled to Xiamen, China 
> and held meetings with three registrars: OnlineNIC Inc., Xiamen eName 
> Network Technology Co. Ltd. and HooYoo Information Technology Co. Ltd.
> The Asia Pacific Event of ICANN-Accredited Registrars and gTLD Registries 
> was held in Tokyo, Japan on 26-27 August 2010. Further details of the 
> event and the presentations by Contractual Compliance and others are 
> available at: 
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-10sep10-en.htm
> The Beijing Office of Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre hosted a 
> conference on Domain Name Dispute Resolution in Beijing on 15 October 
> 2010. Pam Little gave a presentation on “the role of registrars in the 
> domain name dispute resolution process.” Pam also took the opportunity to 
> meet and discuss transfer issues with two ICANN-accredited registrars in 
> Beijing.”
> Europe:
>
> Contractual Compliance staff also conducted a workshop on the Whois Data 
> Accuracy Study conducted by NORC and made presentations to the following 
> stakeholder groups’ meetings during ICANN’s 38 th International Meeting in 
> Brussels in June 2010:
> * ALAC Policy Issues Discussion Part 1 Meeting
> * Registrar Stakeholder Group
> * CBUC Meeting
> * IPC Meeting
>
> UPCOMING EVENTS:
>
> Latin America:
>
> Information regarding ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Program, such as 
> compliance statistics, updated audit schedules and audit results, will be 
> shared with meeting attendees at ICANN’s 39 th International Public 
> meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, 5-10 December 2010.
>
> 5. Consumer Complaint Update
>
> Image of Consumer Complaint Analysis: January-September 2010; Total 
> Complaints - 8,468:
> http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/images/consumer-compliant-update-658x478-22oct10.png
>
> ICANN has a C-Ticket System (see 
> http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi) that 
> captures and tracks complaints filed by the general public. The chart 
> above provides details concerning the categories and number of complaints 
> processed during the first nine months of 2010.
> ICANN follows up on all complaints received regarding suspected RAA 
> violations and Registry Agreement violations.
> ICANN does not, however, have contract authority to address complaints 
> regarding content, SPAM, data protection, web hosting, data privacy, and 
> financial transactions.
> Instead, ICANN forwards complaints to the appropriate parties for 
> handling. ICANN encourages each party to investigate the complaint and 
> report its findings to the complainant and ICANN.
> ICANN is working with law enforcement authorities to assist, when 
> possible, in their investigations and prosecution of domain name abuse.
>
> 6. Recent Staff Changes
>
> There have been some staff changes within ICANN’s Contractual Compliance 
> department.
> William McKelligott, Senior Auditor, resigned from his position in May 
> 2010. Senior Director David Giza also left the company in July 2010.
> A comprehensive search for their replacements has begun, and in the 
> interim, Pam Little, the Senior Director, Asia Pacific, is acting as head 
> of the department.
> In addition, ICANN is also searching for a Contractual Compliance Manager 
> who will be primarily responsible for a WHOIS compliance program. This is 
> a newly created position reporting to the Senior Director of Contractual 
> Compliance and the position will be based in Marina del Rey, CA.
>
> 7. Contacts
>
> Below are the current members of ICANN’s Contractual Compliance 
> department:
> * Pam Little, Senior Director, Asia Pacific, Sydney
> pam.little@xxxxxxxxx
>
> * Stacy Burnette, Director,
> Marina del Rey
> stacy.burnette@xxxxxxxxx
>
> * Khalil Rasheed, Compliance Audit Manager, Marina del Rey
> khalil.rasheed@xxxxxxxxx
>
> * Connie Brown, Compliance Program Specialist, Marina del Rey
> constance.brown@xxxxxxxxx
>
> * The Senior Vice President, Services, is also available as a resource for 
> Contractual Compliance matters:
> Kurt Pritz, Marina del Rey
> kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ___________________________________________
> This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601
>
> Manage your subscription:
> http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9827621&l=6333&s=IIGO&m=328323&c=165637