[registrars] Code of Conduct - Way Forward

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Hello All:

I believe a registrar code of conduct would be a very valuable contribution
to the industry. However, people must realize that it is a VERY complex
issue. Just because it is complex does not mean that it is not worth
pursuing a solution.

Perhaps the discussion in Montreal could deal with a frame work for tackling
the problem instead of a substantive discussion that will need much more
than 30 min. Issues that could be talked about within a frame work context
are:

(1) can the code of conduct be developed internally within the constituency
or does it need GNSO approval?
(2) how would the code of conduct be incorporated into our existing
contractual obligations?
(3) how would the code of conduct be mandated upon resellers/channel
partners?
(4) how would this code of conduct be enforced?
(5) Since ICANN has no contract with resellers/channel partners can they
enforce these agreements?
(6) If there is no enforcement mechanism, what good does a code of conduct
serve?

Let me stress that I have in the past and continue to support the idea of
moving forward with a code of conduct, however, the constituency must
approach this topic with reasonable expectations and a fundamental
understanding of what can and cannot be achieved given the realities of the
marketplace and contractual constraints.

Best regards,

Mike



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Paul Westley
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:22 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; Registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Registrars code of conduct
>
>
> Most of the largest registrars are active in the constituency anyway.
> However, as constituency members I feel we should take the lead
> and set an
> example for other registrars. I do believe that a draft code of practice
> was drawn up in the recent past. It should therefore only need to be
> revived and reviewed in order to take it forward. It would also
> counter the
> large amount of bad publicity that has recently arisen from certain
> registrars and especially resellers of registrars engaging in various
> dubious marketing practices to gain customers from each other (e.g.
> misleading "invoices" or "slamming", direct mailshots to others'
> customers,
> suspect domain renewal reminders by email or post). Often these
> activities
> also involve misuse of WHOIS data, data-mining etc, and this
> links with the
> current WHOIS and privacy debate.
>
> It is also possible that if a code of practice had been set up
> earlier and
> been incorporated into our contracts, that we might not have had many of
> the transfers problems experienced in the recent past.
>
> I believe a code of practice for registrars is very topical and
> deserves 30
> minutes of our time. Does anyone else agree with me (apart from Bruce who
> has proposed it)?
>
> Paul
>
> At 12:03 16/06/03, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >What purpose will this serve? Only a small fraction of accredited
> >registrars are members of this constituency. We are already bound to
> >certain practices by the RAA and the RRA. We have a set bylaws
> under which
> >we conduct RC business. We spend months on policy issues that take
> >significant amounts of our time to research and deal with. A code of
> >conduct will require months more debate to agree on and only serve as
> >another source of contention as one registrar believes another
> is breaking
> >that code.
> >
> >I would hope we spend our time on more meaningful pursuits and look for
> >ways to encourage participation in the RC, not hinder it.
> >
> >Tim
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Re: [registrars] Registrars code of conduct
> >From: "Paul Westley" <paul@internetters.co.uk>
> >Date: Sun, June 15, 2003 10:50 pm
> >To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>,
> >Registrars@dnso.org
> >
> >I think this is excellent and adoption of such a code of practice among
> >registrars would greatly improve customer perception of the domain name
> >registration industry. Can we find 30 minutes in the RC meeting agenda in
> >Montreal for a discussion on a Code of Practice? It would be good if
> >Registrars were seen to be acting proactively on this issue.
> >
> >Paul Westley
> >Internetters
> >
> >At 10:18 AM 16/06/2003 +1000, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > >Hello Elana,
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It was hoped at the time to have a voluntary code by which
> > > > registrars would abide.  Wi! th all appropriate antitrust
> > > > guidance in mind, of course, it may be time to resurrect that
> > > > idea and promote constituency members to work according to
> > > > voluntary principles, which among other things uphold
> > > > consumer interests.
> > > >
> > >
> > >I support Registrars pro-actively developing a voluntary code of
> > >conduct.
> > >
> > >A code of conduct has been developed in Australia for .au, and is
> > >actually compulsory.
> > >
> > >Given that the ALAC (At Large Advisory Committee) is planning
> to develop
> > >a consumer guide to domain names, it would be good timing to reconsider
> > >a code of conduct.
> > >
> > >Here is the customer contact section of the .au code of conduct:
> > >(from http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-2002-26.txt).
> > >
> > >5. Customer Contact
> > >
> > >5.1     A registrar and a reseller of that registrar may agree (through
> > >a registrar-reseller ag! reement)
> > >on procedures for contacting a registrant that has chosen the reseller
> > >as the registrant's agent. The
> > >Registrar of Record for a domain name licence may maintain records of a
> > >registrant's current choice of
> > >agent.
> > >
> > >5.2     A registrar must not send a renewal notice to a registrant, or
> > >any other communication that
> > >might reasonably be construed by a registrant to be a renewal notice,
> > >for a specific domain name
> > >licence unless the registrar is the registrar-of-record for that domain
> > >name licence in the registry
> > >database.
> > >
> > >5.3     A reseller, or other Domain Name Supplier, must not send a
> > >renewal notice, or any other
> > >communication that might reasonably be construed by a
> registrant to be a
> > >renewal notice, for a
> > >specific domain name licence, unless the reseller, or other Domain Name
> > >Supplier, has been appointed
> >&gt!
> >;previously by the registrant to be their agent.
> > >
> > >5.4     A reseller, or other Domain Name Supplier, must advise the
> > >registrant if there will be a
> > >transfer to a new domain name licence with a different
> > >registrar-of-record, associated with accepting
> > >a renewal offer (this may occur when either a reseller becomes a
> > >registrar, or when a reseller chooses
> > >to use a different registrar).
> > >
> > >
> > >5.5     A Domain Name Supplier for a specific domain name licence, must
> > >not send a renewal notice any
> > >earlier than 90 days prior to the expiry date, and should make
> > >reasonable commercial efforts to advise
> > >the registrant of the need to renew at least 30 days prior to expiry.
> > >
> > >5.6     A Domain Name Supplier (including a registrar and a reseller)
> > >may make an offer to a registrant
> > >for domain name services (other than as described in clauses ! 5.1-5.5
> > >above), provided:
> > >
> > >a) it is clearly identified as a solicitation for business;
> > >
> > >b) there is no mention of a specific domain name or related information
> > >such as expiry dates;
> > >
> > >c) it includes a statement that the registrant is under no
> obligation to
> > >respond, and may choose to
> > >renew their domain name licence through the registrar-of-record in the
> > >registry database, or their
> > >existing agent (who may be a reseller of the registrar-of-record);
> > >
> > >d) it is clearly explained that acceptance of the offer may require the
> > >registrant to either transfer
> > >between agents (resellers) within the databases of the
> > >registrar-of-record, or transfer to a new domain
> > >name licence with a different registrar-of-record;
> > >
> > >e) the offer is not sent as email, unless the Domain Name Supplier has
> > >an existing relationship with
> > >the registrant, or the reg! istrant has requested to opt-in
> for marketing
> > >information from the Domain
> > >Name Supplier. Any such email must include a simple and effective
> > >opt-out mechanism;
> > >
> > >f) the contact information for the registrant is not obtained from the
> > >Registry or auDA's centralised
> > >WHOIS service (see clause 13 of the Registrar Agreement);
> > >
> > >g) it cannot reasonably be construed as a renewal notice.
> > >
> > >Examples of unacceptable conduct:
> > >
> > >(1) Sending an invoice (or anything that appears to be an invoice) to a
> > >registrant for domain name
> > >renewal, where the domain is presently registered through another
> > >registrar or reseller.
> > >
> > >(2) Sending a renewal advice for a specific domain with an expiry date
> > >(eg. "xyz.com.au expires on
> > >1/6/2002 - renew it now at our website"), where the domain is presently
> > >registered through another
> > >registrar or reseller.
> > >>(3) Sending a notice addressed to "accounts payable",
> requesting payment
> > >for the renewal of a specific
> > >domain name with an expiry date, where the domain is presently
> > >registered through another registrar
> > >or reseller.
> > >
> > >5.7    If a complaint is made about the accuracy of WHOIS
> data, then the
> > >registrar-of-record must
> > >make reasonable commercial efforts to contact the registrant to arrange
> > >for the information to be
> > >corrected. The registrar-of-record may delegate this
> responsibility to a
> > >reseller via the terms of a
> > >registrar-reseller agreement.
> > >
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Bruce Tonkin
>