Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1037
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, February 13 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1037

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:28:42 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-announce] ICANN Appoints Security Committee Chair

On 00:22 12/02/02, [email-masked] said:
after a long search round the world ...

>ICANN today announced the
>appointment of Dr. Stephen Crocker as chair of its newly formed Standing
>Committee on Security and Stability.

I cannot comment about security, but stability in being opposed ... 
certainly ....

>"I am delighted that someone of Dr. Crocker's stature and experience has
>accepted this challenging task," Lynn noted.

Means: "I am delighted not to be any more the one to be shouted at".

>"The committee will have a key role in working with ICANN constituencies 
>to assess where the principal DNS security risks lie;

ICANN.

>and in advising the Board on priorities for further actions within the 
>scope of ICANN's responsibilities."

Dissolution?

>The Committee membership is in the process of being completed. The 
>membership is being widely drawn from across ICANN's diverse constituency 
>organizations and includes outside experts.

Glad to hear that. Anyone has been informed lately about the selection 
criteria? and about the audit of the selected Members....  I wonder they 
found a budget. Did Dr. Crocker contribute?

All the best to you Dr. Crocker. Congratulation for your Chairmanship. I 
hope you will not stay alone too long. I suppose Kent will be the ICANN 
Staff interface with this Secuirty Committee?

Great! ... But now the ICANN has no one more to grow...

BTW would someone know which State Dr. Stephen Crocker comes from? I 
suppose we should make sure to respecti the diversity of the geographical 
origin of the Staff Members.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 02:52:00 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

Hello Peter!

At 11.02.2002 08:22, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>While I do not necessary agree with IPC recommendations, I do DISAGREE
>about the (possible) ability of At-Large to pay, or to become a
>financial force within ICANN.
>
>With the voluntary or obligatory  donation  of only one US  dollar each,
>the AT-Large could easily become an awesome financial force.

1 US$ donation transferred from my bank account to a
US bank account costs me (1 US$ + 9.63 US$ fee=) 10.63 US$.
With GhanaExpress and NigeriaDirect (Commonwealth Financial
Services Ltd.), you can transfer 1 US$ from Nigeria/Ghana
for a 12 US$ fee.

Yes, there are ten non-US countries where PayPal allows withdrawals
to local bank accounts, none of them in Africa or South America.
But don't forget that 2.9% + 30 UScent = 0,329 US$ is swallowed
by PayPal.

I have read that in some Africa countries the use of credit cards
for transactions involving foreign payments is prohibited.
But then, how many people have credit cards even in Europe?

If there was an easy way to donate 1 US$ per person, fine.
If it is a voluntary donation, okay. But I'm afraid that the
transaction costs for small fees are totally out of proportion.
As Rosa Delgado pointed out at the ICANN Studienkreis meeting
in Salzburg: ISOC just dropped its global membership fee. (You
may still be forced to pay your ISOC chapter, but not the
headquarters.)

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:28:25 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] apologies to Steve Crocker

I want to apologise for the mail I sent by mistake after the nomination of 
Dr. Stephan Crocker.

That post includes two different caustic remarks : some directed to another 
Crocker I first believed being nominated and others directed to the 
position itself in its ICANN context.

I realized the confusion on the forename and I believed I killed the mail 
as not an appropriate welcome. But I certainly stand on the points 
regarding the job, the selection, the financing and the ICANN contribution 
to the network security. They are independent from the nominated person.

Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:34:39 -0800
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

There have been several interesting ideas about funding models on 
this thread, all of which suffer in one degree or another from 
obstacles relating to timing, willingness of those who control purse 
strings to go along, transaction costs, etc.

It appears that there is only one option that has any possibility of 
implementation any time soon - a self-organized initial cohort of 
ALSO participants who are willing to pay a membership fee by credit 
card on a secure web site.

Is there interest in an imperfect but feasible option?

There are tens of millions of Internet users who routinely use credit 
cards for secure online transactions.  The Board previously indicated 
that its lower threshold for viability of an At Large organization 
was 5,000.   $25x5000 = US $125,000, which is at least a start on a 
self-sustaining organization.  $25x10,000 = $250,000 which sounds 
more likely to cover the related costs, assuming that all of the 
leadership continues to be volunteer.

As Alexander's quote of Rosa indicates, ISOC could not build a 
sustaining individual membership at $35 a year.  If ICANN ALSO can't 
meet that general type of minimum test, then the prospects for At 
Large aren't very good.

- - Mike
- -- 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:09:08 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

Mike Roberts wrote:
> 
> 
> There are tens of millions of Internet users who routinely use credit
> cards for secure online transactions.  The Board previously indicated
> that its lower threshold for viability of an At Large organization
> was 5,000.   $25x5000 = US $125,000, which is at least a start on a
> self-sustaining organization.  $25x10,000 = $250,000 which sounds
> more likely to cover the related costs, assuming that all of the
> leadership continues to be volunteer.

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean when you say "the
related costs" in your last sentence above?  Further,
where would the money go exactly if the leadership were
"volunteer", as you say?

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:45:05 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UPDATE: Berkman Center will not webcast ICANN's Accra meetings

I've received quite a few inquiries over the past few months from various GA
members and others interested in using Berkman Center webcast and remote
participation systems to access and participate in ICANN's Accra meetings.
I write today to let you all know that Berkman Center staff will not be
present at ICANN's Accra meetings and therefore will be unable to assist in
that regard.

I understand that ICANN may have an alternative tech team planning an Accra
webcast.  ICANN staff tell me that an announcement of details is likely
forthcoming.  Meanwhile, some details may be available in response to email
to [email-masked] or [email-masked].

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:44:16 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

Make and all assembly members,

Mike Roberts wrote:

> There have been several interesting ideas about funding models on
> this thread, all of which suffer in one degree or another from
> obstacles relating to timing, willingness of those who control purse
> strings to go along, transaction costs, etc.
>
> It appears that there is only one option that has any possibility of
> implementation any time soon - a self-organized initial cohort of
> ALSO participants who are willing to pay a membership fee by credit
> card on a secure web site.
>
> Is there interest in an imperfect but feasible option?

  Sure there is interest.  And this would be one funding method that
is feasible.  I disagree that other methods, such as funding coming from
ICANN existing funds, or electronic transfer into standard accounts
as not also being feasible or at least an augmentation to what
you suggest here.  As you know Mike, Credit card fraud is
up over 40% in the past three years.  As such depending completely
on such a funding method is pacarious at best.

>
>
> There are tens of millions of Internet users who routinely use credit
> cards for secure online transactions.  The Board previously indicated
> that its lower threshold for viability of an At Large organization
> was 5,000.   $25x5000 = US $125,000, which is at least a start on a
> self-sustaining organization.  $25x10,000 = $250,000 which sounds
> more likely to cover the related costs, assuming that all of the
> leadership continues to be volunteer.
>
> As Alexander's quote of Rosa indicates, ISOC could not build a
> sustaining individual membership at $35 a year.  If ICANN ALSO can't
> meet that general type of minimum test, then the prospects for At
> Large aren't very good.
>
> - Mike
> --
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:48:03 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report - Corrected response..

Mike and all assembly members,

Mike Roberts wrote:

> There have been several interesting ideas about funding models on
> this thread, all of which suffer in one degree or another from
> obstacles relating to timing, willingness of those who control purse
> strings to go along, transaction costs, etc.
>
> It appears that there is only one option that has any possibility of
> implementation any time soon - a self-organized initial cohort of
> ALSO participants who are willing to pay a membership fee by credit
> card on a secure web site.
>
> Is there interest in an imperfect but feasible option?

  Sure there is interest.  And this would be one funding method that
is feasible.  I disagree that other methods, such as funding coming from
ICANN existing funds, or electronic transfer into standard accounts
is not also being feasible or at least an augmentation to what
you suggest here.  As you know Mike, Credit card fraud is
up over 40% in the past three years.  As such depending completely
on such a funding method is pacarious at best.

>
>
> There are tens of millions of Internet users who routinely use credit
> cards for secure online transactions.  The Board previously indicated
> that its lower threshold for viability of an At Large organization
> was 5,000.   $25x5000 = US $125,000, which is at least a start on a
> self-sustaining organization.  $25x10,000 = $250,000 which sounds
> more likely to cover the related costs, assuming that all of the
> leadership continues to be volunteer.
>
> As Alexander's quote of Rosa indicates, ISOC could not build a
> sustaining individual membership at $35 a year.  If ICANN ALSO can't
> meet that general type of minimum test, then the prospects for At
> Large aren't very good.
>
> - Mike
> --
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:27:55 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:34:39 -0800, Mike Roberts
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>There are tens of millions of Internet users who routinely use credit 
>cards for secure online transactions.  The Board previously indicated 
>that its lower threshold for viability of an At Large organization 
>was 5,000.   $25x5000 = US $125,000, which is at least a start on a 
>self-sustaining organization.  $25x10,000 = $250,000 which sounds 
>more likely to cover the related costs, assuming that all of the 
>leadership continues to be volunteer.

Hi Mike - can you post a reference to where the Board has indicated
this lower threshold?  It is of interest to me as the DNSO Structure
Taskforce has also been debating what the lower threshold should be.

Can I say at the outset that with only 35,000 people voting last time,
the chances of getting 5,000 people to initially pay US$25 is near
zero in my estimation.  

I believe that an initial fee should be no more than US$5, a minimum
threshold of 1,000 (ten times greater than any constituency) and ICANN
to provide initial transition funding.  *Maybe* after a year or two
when there is a working active ALSO could one look at a higher fee or
a higher threshold but to put them os high at the beginning will doom
the ALSO before it is born in which case we will have wasted $500,000
on the ALSC.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:29:35 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UPDATE: Berkman Center will not webcast ICANN's Accra meetings

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:45:05 -0500, "Ben Edelman"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>I've received quite a few inquiries over the past few months from various GA
>members and others interested in using Berkman Center webcast and remote
>participation systems to access and participate in ICANN's Accra meetings.
>I write today to let you all know that Berkman Center staff will not be
>present at ICANN's Accra meetings and therefore will be unable to assist in
>that regard.

Are you able to be more explicit about the reasons for this Ben?  Is
this just a one off absence due to cost or a permanent disengagement?

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:02:48 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-06

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related) 
discussions and news during the 6th (and the beginning of the 7th) 
week of 2002.  GA list archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.  Please 
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

				Votes

There were no ongoing General Assembly votes during the week 
covered.

The names council's vote on a possible waiver of rules of procedure 
was finished on February 6, with 10 votes in favor, 9 against, and 
one abstention.  As pointed out by Louis Touton (and noted earlier 
by Danny Younger), this means that the waiver was not formally 
accepted during this vote.  Also, as Touton points out, the Names 
Council "may not formally act through a vote conducted by e-mail 
alone." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00116.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00125.html>.

				Topics

(i) WLS.  Abel Wisman presented a first draft of a response to the 
revised WLS proposal.  This draft contained various questions 
collected from various mailing lists.  Independently of that, Thomas 
Roessler prepared another (considerably shorter) list of questions, 
and, finally, George Kirikos submitted no less than twenty 
questions.  Alexander Svensson eventually created a compilation of 
all the different sets of questions, which was then submitted to 
Verisign.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00846.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00866.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00899.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00926.html>.

Danny Younger sent a pointer to the registrars' set of questions.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02018.html>

(ii) Structure Task Force.  Danny Younger commented on the structure 
task force's work.  He notes that version 5 of the task force's 
draft was posted on January 17, that it had seen practically no 
comments from the DNSO.  Version 6 (which was supposed to be based 
on comments received) is still missing.  According to Danny, this is 
proof for the "continued failure" of the task force approach.  Also, 
he demands that the TF should focus on restructuring the DNSO.  As 
Danny puts it, "none of us care much about the BC's and IPC's 
opinion about the future ALM."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00897.html>

In a follow-up, Peter de Blanc points out that he disagrees (!) 
about the possible ability of the at-large to become a "possible 
financial force within ICANN."  As an example, he takes just one US 
dollar per member.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00938.html>.

Alexander Svensson replies that small membership fees are hardly 
practical, since sending such donations to the US directly would 
create banking costs which make any payment unpractical.  As 
examples, he lists GhanaExpress and NigeriaDirect, where a transfer 
of $ 1 would generate a fee of $ 12.  He concludes that collecting 
small fees directly would generate prohibitive transaction costs.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00943.html>

Mike Roberts suggests that the only option which may be implemented
("an imperfect, but feasible option") is "a self-organized initial
cohort of ALSO participants who are willing to pay a membership fee
by credit card." He quotes "a sustaining individual membership" as a
"general type of minimum test."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00945.html>

In a follow-up message, David P. Farrar asks for a reference about
the board indicating a minimum threshold of 5,000 members for a
viable at-large organization (which was also mentioned by Mike).
David estimates that the "chances of getting 5,000 people to
initially pay $ 25 is near zero." He suggests a lower fee and a
lower threshold.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00950.html>

(iii) Transfer Task Force.  Danny points to discussion notes from 
the task force's latest conference call.  The notes were pointed to 
the registrars list by Ross Rader.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00898.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02001.html>.

(iv) Webcast of Accra meetings.  Ben Edelman pointed out that the
Berkman Center's staff will not be present in Accra, and that ICANN
itself should be contacted for webcast details.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00947.html>

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:11:57 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UPDATE: Berkman Center will not webcast ICANN's Accra meetings

David wrote:

> Are you able to be more explicit about the reasons for this Ben?

I can't say for sure why ICANN declined the Berkman Center's proposal --
indeed, their staff didn't give me a reason when notifying me that they had
declined the Berkman Center's Accra meeting tech proposal.  But certainly
Berkman Center staff and ICANN staff have, over the past three years and
past twelve meetings, at times had different ideas about the appropriate and
optimal scope, technical sophistication, and robustness (backup systems,
etc.) of meeting webcasts, as well as the associated costs that such
facilities entail.  I actually haven't had the sort of back-and-forth
negotiation with ICANN that would lead me to well understand their
motivations and concerns here, but my sense is that they thought they could
get a better service -- perhaps one that they perceive to better match their
needs, or that they find to feature a lower total cost -- elsewhere.

> Is
> this just a one off absence due to cost or a permanent disengagement?

My understanding is that ICANN may have tentatively made arrangements with
another organization to offer webcast services at Accra.  I wouldn't want to
presuppose how that that relationship will develop, but it seems to me
likely that if the new organization proves satisfactory in that context,
ICANN will stick with them going forward.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:04:36 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Access lending may violate RAA, says ICANN

http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-12feb02.htm

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Registrar Advisory Concerning Inappropriate Lending of Registry Access

Based on recent communications with registrars, it has become apparent that
some ICANN-accredited registrars may be inappropriately lending their access
to registries to third-party proxies. If not appropriately conducted, 
providing
registry access to third parties can violate registrars' agreements with ICANN
and jeopardize their continued accreditation. While registrars are permitted to
enter into reseller arrangements with agents that assist them in providing
service to customers, registrars are not permitted otherwise to lend access to
their connections directly to entities that are not accredited registrars.

The purpose of this advisory is to assist registrars in understanding their
obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) [*] in matters
relating to lending access to entities that are not accredited registrars.
Where appropriate, ICANN will exercise its right to audit registrar records
in order to ensure compliance with the RAA.

Pertinent Provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement

The current version of the RAA is divided into 5 sections: section 1 defines
terms; section 2 describes ICANN's obligations to registrars; section 3
describes registrars' obligations to ICANN; section 4 describes how ICANN's
consensus process can create new policies that would be binding on registrars;
and section 5 covers miscellaneous subjects such as termination and 
assignment.

Section 3's "Registrar Obligations" cover topics such as submission of data to
registries, data retention requirements, public access to Whois data,
accreditation fees, and also various business requirements and restrictions
binding on registrars. These operational mandates are set forth in Section 
3.7,
entitled "Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders." Several
of these provisions are relevant to lending of registrar-registry access.
These include:

  3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a
  port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date
  (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names
  sponsored by Registrar for each TLD in which it is accredited. ...

  3.4.2 During the Term of this Agreement and for three years thereafter,
  Registrar (itself or by its agent(s)) shall maintain ... records relating to
  its dealings with the Registry Operator(s) and Registered Name Holders ... .

  3.7.3 Registrar shall not represent to any actual or potential Registered 
Name
  Holder that Registrar enjoys access to a registry for which Registrar is
  Accredited that is superior to that of any other registrar Accredited for 
that
  registry.

  3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless and until 
it is
  satisfied that it has received a reasonable assurance of payment of its
  registration fee.

  3.7.7 Registrar shall require all Registered Name Holders to enter into an
  electronic or paper registration agreement with Registrar ... .

In summary, based on these provisions a registrar:

- - must have a contract with a registrant for every domain name it registers
   (3.7.7);

- - must not "add" domains into a registry without advance assurance of payment
   of the registration fee (3.7.4);

- - must not represent that it has superior access to the registry (3.7.3);

- - must maintain a record of all registration data it submits to the registry
   (3.4.2); and

- - must provide Whois data, updated at least daily, for every domain it 
sponsors
   in the registry (3.3.1).

Registrar Access-Lending Schemes

At least one registrar access-lending scheme currently in operation raises
significant issues under these provisions of the RAA. One registrar recently
reported that it was unaware that it was responsible for hundreds of domain
registrations that had been added to and then deleted from the registry 
without
the registrar's participation. The registrations had been processed through a
machine provided by a third party that had been installed on the registrar's
network. This registrar had agreed to install the third party's machine in
exchange for monetary compensation paid to the registrar. The third party was
using the machine's access to the registry to add domain registrations into 
the
registry on behalf of the third party's customers.

Those customers had not agreed to enter into the registrar's registration 
agreement
(in violation of RAA section 3.7.7); indeed, it appears the registrar had no
relationship with the customers involved. The customers had not paid (or 
promised
to pay) the registrar prior to the activation of the registrations (in 
violation
of 3.7.4). The registrar apparently did not have any record of the domains 
that had
been registered (and subsequently deleted) through its systems (in 
violation of
3.4.2). Since the registrar didn't even know it had made some of the 
registrations,
it was not providing updated Whois data for those registrations (in 
violation of
3.3.1).

Overarching these other violations is a breach of section 3.7.3, which 
prohibits
registrars from representing that they have superior registry access. It 
appears
that the third party has been claiming it offered the best chance to acquire
expired names. Registrars allowing, in violation of the above provisions, a 
third
party to enjoy the registrars' access to the registry are responsible for the
superior-access claims that third party makes.

Permissible Registrar Wholesale/Reseller Models Distinguished

Many ICANN-accredited registrars operate or participate in wholesale/reseller
business models that can be readily distinguished from the impermissible
access-lending schemes outlined above. In a standard registrar/reseller model,
the registrar complies with all of the above provisions of the RAA. The 
registrar
that processes domain registrations through resellers is required to have a
contract with every registrant, obtain assurance of payment before activating
registrations, maintain its own records of all registration data, and provide
public access to updated data for all domains it sponsors.

Conclusion

All ICANN-accredited registrars are strongly encouraged to undertake an 
immediate
review of any access-lending schemes in which they are currently 
participating to
ensure that they are in compliance with all of the provisions of the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement. Registrars that continue to operate in breach of 
the RAA
should review section 5.3 of the agreement, which covers termination of
accreditation. ICANN considers registrar compliance with accreditation 
agreements
to be a high priority. ICANN will exercise its right under Section 3.4.3 to 
audit
registrar records as appropriate.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[*] http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1037
*************************