Fwd: [At-Large] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
In response to the RAA-WG version, here is my input on the RAA:
A. Principles
" ...also, the possibility of establishing fast and inexpensive alternate
dispute resolution processes, similar to the UDRP, for other typical
registration issues (challenged deletes/transfers, for example), should be
explored."
> There are many consumer issues regarding domains that ICANN should look
into some type of supporting role, ie: trasfers, deletes, identity theft,
system hacking, lack of response from registrar, etc. Whether ICANN should
support an internal or external environment for this should come under
thoroough investigation.
"...we encourage ICANN to experiment possible alternate registration models;
for example, especially for small-scale TLDs, the registry and the registrar
functions could be performed by a single operator, non-profit and operating
for the public good, as used in several ccTLDs. "
> Rather than experiment, we would prefer that ICANN investigate the
possibilities and have working groups set up to discuss such issues.
B. Issues
1.
Information given to registrants
> It is apparent that some registrars offer different services than others.
When it comes to the DNS itself (AGP, etc.) then there should be some
consistency among registrars to avoid confusion. ie: some registrars have a
5 day pendingdelete period, while others may have 180 days. There should be
consistency in these matters.
"1.3 Add a clause in the RAA so to require registrars, in case of loss of
their accreditation for whatever reason, to promptly inform their customers
of such event."
> They should also provide recommendations on what to do with their domains
- or suggest corrective actions for the registrants, also some type of
recovery system should be in place.
1.
Roles and responsibilities of the registrant's contacts
>This section should also describe how the registrant's information will be
used, and that it should be protected at all times by the registrar.
1.
Transfer procedures and fees
> There should be no fees involved with transfers.
> During transfers, there could be many codes used for ensuring that the
transfer is initiated legally. The EPP codes as well as other codes used by
gaining or losing registrars are a cumbersome process and should be changed
immediately. There should be a balance between the security of the transfer
and the ease of the transfer. On one hand, we want to ensure that the
transfer is from and to the rightful registrant of the domain. On the other
hand, a registrant should not be forced to individually transfer domains
through a lengthy process in order to complete the transfer. ICANN should
initiate a working group to deal with the next version of this system.
4. Compliance assessments for registrars
PROBLEMS:
The Registerfly case demonstrated the lack of effective means for ICANN to
get early notice of a registrar whose service is deteriorating to the point
of being unusable and damaging to its customers, and, eventually going
bankrupt. ICANN, even when being made aware of the problems, lacked
effective means for intervention, and a reasonable scale of sanctions.
> I disagree. The registerfly case demonstrated ICANNs failure to act in a
timely manner on an important issue. Rather than being proactive, it waited
for the market to step in and offer solutions. This is an irresponsible
management practice and therefore should be explored thoroughly in the event
of registry/registrar failure.
> An online complaint system should be combined with a rapid resolution
system. With this enacted, there should be no need for ICANN to itself
conduct compliance audits outside the scope of contractual relations.
However, ICANN should assist a 3rd party in conducting such audits to ensure
compliance with contractual obligations.
> The graduated scale of sanctions should not be voluntary.
1.
Rating of registrars
> I don't see the overall objective of this rating system. It is not
conducive to a free market in general. However, if ICANN could support a
3rd party in coordinating a rating system (qualitative and quantitative)
then it could be a good thing. ICANNs involvement in this should be more
from afar.
6. Reseller liability
PROBLEMS:
A significant quantity of domain name registrations are made through online
domain registration services that are not accredited by ICANN, but rely on
an ICANN-accredited registrar to perform the actual registration
("resellers"). Some resellers have a specific contract with the registrar(s)
they use; some others don't. While it is clear that resellers that do not
have contractual agreements with registrars are not accountable, even
indirectly, to ICANN, those that do can be indirectly affected by the RAA.
> This statement is misleading. Normally, with no exceptions to my
knowledge but possibly so, there is a contract between the reseller and the
registrar. The registrar normally handles all backend functions and
complies with ICANN. Resellers handle marketing and customer support.
Normally, the registrar handles backup customer support. Normally, when a
reseller ceases existence, the registrar takes over responsibility of
managing the portfolio.
> Accreditation of resellers is not necessary since there are indeed
agreements between the resellers and the registrar.
> The compliance rating system seems very Orwellian in nature and I disagree
with the overall intent of the system with regard to resellers and to
registrars.
> " I am a reseller and will abide by applicable ICANN policies" This
statement should be refined into something more logical, but it is
unnecessary overall.
9. Proxy registrations
"Proxy registrations are a wrong reply to the widespread demand for privacy
by domain name registrants"
> This portion should be withdrawn, as it is an unsubstantiated opinion.
Many people feel they do not have the technical ability to manage domains
themselves and should be afforded the opportunity to have domains
administered through proxy by another party.
> Proxy registrations should be allowed and supported by ICANN and the
registrars. Whether other guidelines need to be considered is beyond my
scope here.
> The RAA should avoid such language that involves 'voluntary" adherence to
set guidelines.
10. WHOIS
> I agree and add to the thought that the privacy of registrant data be
honored and not shared in any other way not authorized by ICANN. The
privacy of registrant data, and the registrar being the custodian of such
data should be considered.
Thanks,
Randy Glass
America@Large
Attachment:
raa-comments.odt Attachment:
raa-comments.doc |