FW: ICANN and Registrar Negotiation Team Post Summary of RAA Negotiations

Tue Mar 6 17:28:50 CET 2012

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>wrote:
<snip>

> Am I right that ICANN Staff seems to be pushing all of this into one box?
>
>
Yes, it is my impression that ICANN at the request of LEAs and perhaps
others is attempting to standardize several domain name registration
practices. Not only for proxy registrations but also for validation of
Registrant data.

E.g., the issues report (although not the summary documents) makes
reference to Registrars following a payment card standard (PCI DSS) for
validation of Registrant data. However, AFAIK, the PCI standard is about
securing data <https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/pci_dss_v2.pdf>.
 More importantly, each "payment card brand has its own program
for compliance, validation levels and enforcement."  <
https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/PCI%20SSC%20Quick%20Reference%20Guide.pdf
>

I assume there is no uniform model of validation in the payment card
industry for a variety of good reasons. It makes little sense to me to
think validation can be standardized for the domain name industry.  In
fact, I would think this might be something Registrars might want to
compete on.  Yet standardization of data validation is what is being
proposed (LEA request #10). And the Registrars have agreed in principle.

Unfortunately, I cannot attend (even virtually) next Tuesday's discussion
about this, I hope someone can attend and raise these issues.

Cheers,

Brenden

> Best,
> Kathy
> :
>
> I have exchanged a few emails on the subject of the economics of
> registrar's handling of whois data with the owner of canadian-based easyDNS
> (he put together a whois masking feature that is called myprivacy.ca that
> isn't quite a privacy-proxy service: it's more of a whois mining/spamming
> protection), and he was basically telling me that most registrars (i.e.
> it's in the economic structure of the registrar game) will dump you at the
> first sign of trouble, if not even before. That is, whether or not
> 'trouble' is legitimate (while this should be for a judge to decide).
>
> I opined that there was surely no problem with having a lawyer register
> some domains for you if you had an agreement with him/her specifying
> principal and agent, or some such, and that I was surprised that such
> services were not more popular.
>
> Anybody know if some lawyers are actively offering domain registering
> proxy services "en masse"?
>
> By the way, one should go take a look at righthaven.org's FAQ<http://www.righthaven.com/blog/content/answers-frequently-asked-questions>(it is down at the time of this writing, but well worth the immediate read,
> try entering "cache:
> http://www.righthaven.com/blog/content/answers-frequently-asked-questions"
> as your google search terms), which is a hosting service that purports to
> be "with a spine" i.e. they will, amongst other things, fight the
> subpoenas.
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 3/5/2012 11:28 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>
> I'm very concerned by item 1 (below):
>
> We should work to see the language and to ensure that it would not
> exclude the registration of names on another's behalf by an agent
> committed to protecting privacy, such as an attorney.
>
> LEA REQUEST 1: (a) If ICANN creates a Privacy/Proxy Accreditation
> Service, Registrars will accept proxy/privacy registrations only
> from accredited providers; (b) “Registrants using privacy/proxy
> registration services will have authentic Whois information
> immediately published by Registrar when registrant is found to be
> violating terms of service”
>
> Agreement in Principle: (a) Yes (b) Yes
> Agreement on Language: (a) Yes (b) No
>
> Notes/Comments
> (a) Registrars will comply with commercially reasonable privacy/proxy
> accreditation scheme
>
> (b) “Reveal” or “relay” provisions will be included in a
> proxy/privacy accreditation program.
>
> (c) Further discussion needed to address
> request for “publication” of underlying
> data to general public, which may raise
> data protection issues.
>
> (d) Further discussion required on issues
> related to escrow of underlying data,
> issues related to unidentified, informal
> proxy service providers, determination
> that registrant is violating terms of
> service
>
> On 03/05/2012 11:13 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>
>  FYI
>
>
>
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>
> Senior Lecturer,
> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
> Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Law School,
> Graham Hills building,
> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
> Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
> Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org> <http://www.komaitis.org>
>
> From: owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org <owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
> Sent: Δευτέρα, 5 Μαρτίου 2012 3:50 μμ
> To: liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [liaison6c] ICANN and Registrar Negotiation Team Post Summary of RAA Negotiations
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-01mar12-en.htm
> 1 March 2012
>
> In advance of the Costa Rica meeting, ICANN and the Registrar Negotiation Team have prepared a summary of the negotiations<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-negotiations-progress-report-01mar12-en.pdf> <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-negotiations-progress-report-01mar12-en.pdf> [PDF, 117 KB] on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). After the Board directed ICANN and the Registrars<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> to proceed into negotiations regarding recommendations by law enforcement<http://www.icann.org/en/reso
> urces/registrars/raa/raa-law-enforcement-recommendations-01mar12-en.p
> df> <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-law-enforcement-recommendations-01mar12-en.pdf> [PDF, 111 KB] and recommendations from the GNSO, negotiations proceeded at a brisk pace, with 13 negotiation sessions held to date. There are many topics where ICANN and the Registrar Negotiation Team are close to agreement on language, and even more topics where there is agreement in principle. Because of the comprehensive nature of the amendments, it is expected that all negotiated language will be posted a
>
>  s a unified document after further negotiation.
>
>  The summary chart<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-negotiations-progress-report-01mar12-en.pdf> <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-negotiations-progress-report-01mar12-en.pdf> [PDF, 117 KB] released today provides information on nearly all of the items that have been raised in the negotiations, and the current status of agreement on those issues.
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariatgnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120306/19cd6b96/attachment-0001.html>