Re: [registrars] Code of Conduct

[kstubbs@corenic.org]

hello all

i believe we need to stratify the items for inclusion and , if necessary set
up an initial "best practices" code and add to it as additional items are
"vetted out".
 there are clearly items which need to be included initially and there are
items which represents operational issues  such as item number 5.

our initial emphasis should be to insure that items which represent clear
deficiencies in adherence to or violations of  ICANN accredition
requirements be addressed ASAP.
we must be pro-active and get these items off our plate  well before the
next icann board meeting. this should not be that difficult.

clearly there are other issues which we must address which also cannot wait,
principal among that being escrowing of data. this too must be addressed and
recommendations made to ICANN as to how SPECIFICALLY THIS MUST BE
ACCOMPLISHED. I have talked to various parties and , frankly, this is not
brain surgery. every registrar must realize that this specific item is an
ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT   which must be adhered to.

i would hope that we can be viewed by the rest of the constituancies and the
ICANN board as being able to deal with the majority of these issues in a
responsible, efficient way and not turn this into an interminably long
task.

with respect to the "whois" data , we need to re-affirm the requirements of
the accreditationagreement and make a VERY POSITIVE statement to ICANN to
insist that they re-inforce them.

another critical issue which must be addressed is the responsibility of the
accredited registrars to insure the adherence of their re-sellers and
affiliates to the accreditation requirements. each and every registrar is
fully aware that they are totally responsible for the actions of their
re-seller agents and we need to start self policing any problems  and non
compliance issues which we find . frankly i feel very strongly  that every
registrar should be required to proivide a list of any resellers or agents
(ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS ) to the ICANN staff so they monitor at their
discretion compliance with requirements. this would also be very helpful in
allowing ICANN staff to address any issues which come up with re-sellers
direct with the accredited registrar facilitating the actual registration
for that re-seller.

these are a few thoughts i felt i should get before you all after various
discussions with parties at every level concerned with this side of the
process. i can positively assue you all that they are very enthusiastic for
us to complete this process.


ken stubbs






----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D. Palage <mpalage@infonetworks.com>
To: Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>; Registrars@Dnso.Org
<registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 7:51 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Code of Conduct


> I re-read Jeff's initial proposal and here are my comments. I agree with
the
> pre-amble and setting up of the different type of infractions, however, I
> believe accessing $ amount or penalties should be better left up to ICANN.
> In addition these are the following issues that need to be addressed in
the
> Code of Conduct based upon the collective feedback that I have received
from
> registrars:
>
> (1) Whois - availability and possible standardization of data
> (2) Escrow data - reliable third agents, potential standardization,
process,
> etc.
> (3) Warehousing of domain names for the primary purpose of resale, i.e.
not
> credit card charge back issues
> (4) Hijacking of Domain Names - availability checks by one party and
> consequent name registrations by another party for on-selling to the first
> party
> (5) Correcting Registrar processing errors. What happens when a domain
name
> is accidentally released and then registered by a third party. Under NSI's
> registration agreement there are no vested rights in the domain name for
30
> days. How can we establish a process to remedy these problems and
indemnify
> the parties.
> (6) Credit policies
> (7) Transfer policies
>
> Perhaps the drafting of the document could work in the following manner.
> Each volunteer/drafter could take one of the above issues and then
flush-out
> that particular point. After each of the criteria has been drafted all of
> them could be reassembled with the preamble for a document that could then
> be collectively critiqued.
>
> I agree with Richard that having a teleconference is the next logical step
> among those parties that have expressed an interest. I also agree with
Erica
> that most of these aforementioned criteria are technical in nature and are
> critical toward the registrar community being viewed as ethical and
> responsible. However, the reason that the legal side is so important is
that
> if you want this code of conduct to have any teeth, there is going to be
the
> need for adequate enforcement mechanisms. You can understand that a
company
> may take it a little personal if you try to have them de-accredited. This
is
> where the lawyers enter the picture and things get nasty.
>
> I would like to thank Richard, Erica, Jeff and the others for their help
in
> this matter to date and their continued leadership in this area.
>
> Does anyone have any negative feedback on the revised WG-B proposal? The
> fact that the other constituencies have not shot it full of holes should
be
> taken as a good sign. If there are no further changes to that document we
> will need to start getting signatures on that document to solidify our
> support for it.
>
> As discussed in Cairo, I have been working on a revised budget for the
> Registrar Constituency. This is based in part upon Ken Stubbs revised
Names
> Counsel budget and our portion of these fees. Thank you for those
registrars
> that have paid the Names Counsel portion of the Registrar's dues to date.
I
> will be posting an updated list of the received fees later this week after
I
> resolve some wire problems encountered by some registrars.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf
> Of Richard Lindsay
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:41 AM
> To: Registrars@Dnso.Org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Code of Conduct
>
> Greetings everyone,
>
> Did I hear my name called? :-)
>
> In Cairo we had discussed setting up a "Best Practices" task
> force, one of the issues to settle being the Code of Conduct.
> I had volunteered to help organize this overall task force, but
> of course welcome support in driving this particular aspect, the
> Code of Conduct, forward.  Being in Tokyo makes communications
> sometimes difficult, so having someone in North America to help
> coordinate is a big benefit.
>
> I did send out an email to the mailing list asking if anyone wanted
> to get involved.  This was following a draft by Jeff (mentioned
> below) which was sent to a subset of Registrars.  I don't believe
> this has been submitted to the list yet, so if Jeff doesn't mind
> I will forward that draft.
>
> To date, I believe the following Registrars and members have
> volunteered to participate:
>
> Bob Connelly
> Lauren Gaviser
> Ross Wm. Rader
> Alexander (I apologize, my font garbled your last name, is it Bauer?)
> Erica Roberts
> Jeff Shrewsbury (interest by drafting a first version :-))
> Josh Elliott (by being cc'd on Jeff's mail)
>
> I think this is a good group to start with.  If anyone wants to join,
> or if I missed someone please let us know.  I think we could now
> move on in the process as we to break down what we have to do,
> and identify our goals and milestones.  The next steps may be
> to  determine exactly what we are to accomplish, and perhaps
> set some guidelines, and maybe set up a conference call
> sometime in the near future to discuss a course of action.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Richard
>
> "Michael D. Palage" wrote:
>
> > I would welcome Richard as well as anyone elses help in advancing this
> Code
> > of Conduct. I have already posted to the list an agenda of those items
> which
> > should be included based on the feedback of various registrars. Several
> > registrars have already volunteered the support of their legal staff
which
> > should make this document bullet-proof. The reason for this sense of
> urgency
> > is that the TM people are beginning to raise some noise in DC that the
> > registrars are having trouble with 3 top-level domains why should we
give
> > them anymore. Therefore, we must get our house in order over the next
> > several months and show up in Japan with a Code of Conduct IN PLACE.
The
> > only draft to date has been the one posted by Jeff Shrewsbury.
Therefore,
> we
> > need to look at this first proposal and see whether we need to modify it
> or
> > start from scratch.
> >
> > Mike
>
> --
> _/_/_/interQ Incorporated
> _/_/_/System Division
> _/_/_/Director and General Manager
> _/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay
> _/_/_/
> _/_/_/Shibuya Infoss Tower 10F,
> _/_/_/20-1 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku Tokyo, (150-0031) Japan
> _/_/_/TELEPHONE:  81-3-5456-2687
> _/_/_/FACSIMILE:  81-3-5456-2556
>
>