[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 |