ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: RAA 3.7.1


Title: Help
 
 
Dear Mr Lynn
 
I'm unimpressed by ICANN's willingness to acquiesce in registrar abuse of processes to the detriment of the consumer. A Code of Conduct is clearly overdue - and other entities like .au show that it can be done. One area where ICANN surely has leverage is in its power to grant accreditation. At present this seems to be granted largely on the basis of a registrar's technical capability to be a registrar. If ICANN wants standards in this industry, it should LEAD the way (like .au) by defining the minimum standards of conduct necessary for accreditation. Where registrars breach the code there should (in bad cases) be the prospect of loss of accreditation.
 
Moreover, these standards should be introduced in revisions to Registry Agreements, so that the various Registries also make participation of registrars conditional on adherence to certain standards. It is astonishing that ICANN did not craft this into the original Registry agreements anyway. Why on earth didn't they?
 
Let's take a look at certain well-known cases where the consumer may have suffered because of ICANN's lax contractual architecture:
 
Yesnic was repeatedly successfully challenged through WIPO for registering .info Sunrise names with fake Trademarks. Over 200 names were obtained by Yesnic in the .info Sunrise. There was widespread use of fake details to hi-jack names which the public (or other TM holders) had a right to. And yet... ICANN still accredits Yesnic today. ICANN still endorses them to the public, lists them, hyperlinks to them.
 
The case of Hal Lubsen, DomainBank and the Lorenz "zero-data" registrations is another example of registrars abusing established processes. As CEO of Afilias, Hal Lubsen was responsible for the contractual requirement for registrars to guarantee mandatory info in 4 TM data fields in the .info Sunrise. As is well known, Hal is himself closely associated with DomainBank, and they charged iro $15000 to obtain 93 registrations which had zero info in any of these mandatory fields - to the detriment of the general public. It was a registrar abusing the contractual process for profit. The link with the Afilias CEO made it even more reprehensible.
 
Go one step further to resellers, and you sometimes have chaos. Spy Productions not only faked Trademark numbers for themselves, but put in fake Trademarks for their customers, so they could exploit the Sunrise system. It was Spy Productions staff who made up these fake TM numbers. All this happened with ICANN's acquiescence. No action was taken to "lever" Tucows into taking punitive action or sanctions. Why would there be, when ICANN was smiling benignly on Yesnic?
 
There are probably 20 other cases I could cite in a longer mail. The bottom line is that ICANN can introduce a Code of Conduct speedily if it wants to. It can lead the way by making it mandatory for those wanting accreditation. It can attempt to revise the Registry Agreements which should have had Conduct standards for Registrars written in from the start. And it can create a culture of decency and standards to put pressure on the registrar community to expedite its own Code of Conduct.
 
The real leverage - indeed the real power of enforcement that ICANN has - is the economic benefits of being legitimised by ICANN. If ICANN had made participation in Registries conditional on adherence to a Code of Conduct from the outset, we would now have a more ethical industry. It's more a question of WILL than ability really. ICANN has created a wildwest frontier, and then says it can do nothing about it. That is a dereliction of the consumer and ordinary internet users.
 
I am dismayed that ICANN appears to have abandoned the ordinary internet users, while cotton-woolling its friends and associates in the registrar community. There are many excellent registrars. But the worst of them need "regulation" because they are never going to regulate themselves.
 
Mr Lynn : how many frauds must a registrar commit before you stop supporting them with your accreditation? why wasn't a Code of Conduct made mandatory via the Registry Agreements with ICANN? why should a rogue registrar be allowed to continue business if it flouts the processes determined by ICANN and the Registries? and why does ICANN turn a blind eye to various abuses and expressed concerns, and appear to "protect" their registrars (I'm still waiting for replies to mails I sent back in April and May on issues of Registrar conduct and accreditation)?
 
Richard Henderson
 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
 
Stuart Lynn wrote:
 
Dear Danny:

I do believe your reading of 3.7.1. is not correct.  It does not
*require* ICANN to develop such a code of conduct. It requires
registrars to *abide* by such a code should such a code be adopted
following a consensus of accredited registrars. Clearly, the
prerequisite action is for the accredited registrars to arrive at a
consensus on such a code, something they have not yet achieved.
ICANN cannot unilaterally modify its agreements with other parties.

There is nothing within the scope of the Blueprint or the ERC that
would change this situation.

Stuart




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>