RE: [wg-review] GA - Member ID and Record keeping rules

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Sandy Harris wrote:-
How do you make the process genuinely representative, given that anyone with
some
resources and an agenda can create bogus domains and/or users at will?>

It is crucial not only to the credibility of DNSO, but also @Large and
ICANN, that member identity and record keeping rules are put on the agenda
as a priority. Membership of this WG has been granted on a trust basis, but
it doesn't scale. In the long term, it is essential for membership identity
to be verified at local level on a country by country basis ("country" in
the context of this post also means jurisdiction, region or  territory).
This is backed up by the Financial Action Task Force Report, published Feb1.

The FATF, an inter-governmental body, includes 29 countries and 2 observer
organizations and notes the increased opportunities on the internet for
money laundering using identity fraud, (of individuals and corporations)
without a face to face meeting, noting how the internet allows for anonymous
registration of accounts and trading through international companies where
few, if any records are kept, located in countries which may not only be
difficult to identify, but also have refused to co-operate with
international guidelines.

In issuing its report, the FATF said countries could take several measures
to counter money laundering. They include:

1) Requiring internet service providers to maintain accurate and thorough
subscriber information
2) Require the establishment of log files, showing access and telephone
number identity
3) Ensure that information is made available internationally .

It was recognised from the outset of the FATF that countries have diverse
legal and financial systems and so all cannot take identical measures. The
Recommendations are therefore the principles for action in this field, for
countries to implement according to their particular circumstances and
constitutional frameworks allowing countries a measure of flexibility rather
than prescribing every detail. The measures are not particularly complex or
difficult, provided there is the political will to act. Nor do they
compromise the freedom to engage in legitimate transactions or threaten
economic development.

FATF countries are clearly committed to accept the discipline of being
subjected to multilateral surveillance and peer review. All member countries
have their implementation of the Forty Recommendations monitored through a
two-pronged approach: an annual self-assessment exercise and the more
detailed mutual evaluation process under which each member country is
subject to an on-site examination. In addition, the FATF carries out
cross-country reviews of measures taken to implement particular
Recommendations.

The twenty-nine FATF member countries and governments are: Argentina;
Australia; Austria; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Denmark; Finland; France;
Germany; Greece; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Japan;
Luxembourg; Mexico; the Kingdom of the Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway;
Portugal; Singapore; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; the United Kingdom;
and the United States.

The two international organisations are: the European Commission and the
Gulf Co-operation Council.

The report is available in English, French, Chinese, German, Japanese,
Portuguese, Spanish and Russian

The URL is http://www.oecd.org/fatf/40Recs_en.htm See Customer
Identification and Record-keeping Rules

I submit this document as reference and source material for this WG in
relation membership ID and record keeping rules of the GA.

Joanna




--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html