[NCUC-DISCUSS] Registrants Rights and Responsibilities: let's propose a real alternative

[Milton L Mueller]

In our interactions with the board on Tuesday, we discovered that the current statement of registrant rights and responsibilities was developed by the registrars in connection with their RAA negotiations. In response to our suggestion that maybe registrants ought to be consulted a bit on what their rights should be, Board member Bruce Tonkin wrote the following:

"As mentioned there is an existing document on the ICANN website that relates to the 2009 version for the RAA.

"Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Under the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement" http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities 

"As you will see it is more geared towards lawyers than towards a typical registrant.
The latest version for the 2013 RAA I think was an attempt to simplify for a more general audience.

"I think it would be a good idea for the NCUC to work with ALAC to create a set of principles as it relates to registrant rights, in the same way that the GAC created a set of public policy principles as they related to new gTLDs and WHOIS."

Does Wendy's list and subsequent discussion provide a basis for responding to this? Who wants to take ownership of this process, including involving ALAC? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:ncuc-discuss-
> bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Timothe Litt
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 8:54 AM
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Registrants Rights and Responsibilities:
> let's propose a real alternative
> 
> > the registrars argued that
> > uniform rules would interfere with their "competitive" differences as
> > defined by the contract terms in their individual registration
> > agreements with customers.
> That may well be their knee-jerk reaction, but in this case it's wrong.
> 
> Nothing I suggested prevents vigorous competition on terms. Rather the
> contrary.
> 
> All I suggested is that:
>      * Registrant must be pro-actively notified of changes
>      * Changes must be easily determined by the registrant
>      * Changes adverse to the registrant must enable the registrant to
> change registrars under (at worst) the terms initially agreed-upon.
> 
> If the initial terms are changed in a way beneficial or neutral to the
> registrant, everyone is happy.
> 
> If they are changed in a *materially adverse* way, the registrar can't
> hold the registrant captive.  (Materially adverse is a term of art -
> usually self-evident, but might provide employment for attorneys.)
> 
> The initial terms might be what we would consider outrageous, but if
> clearly disclosed and agreed to, that's not our concern. Registrars are
> free to compete on price, or what DNS records they'll register, or how
> fast they'll implement changes, or what language they speak, or how
> disputes are resolved or what choice of law applies to their contracts.
> Or anything else.
> 
> The constraints - which are simply transparency and fairness - are that
> if the registrar changes those terms, the change needs to be clear and
> pushed to the registrant.  And that if they are bad for the registrant,
> the new terms (which were unknown at the time the contract was entered
> into) can't lock the registrant into the worsened situation.  (This must
> also apply to changes pushed to the registrar from the
> registry/ICANN/legal process - this is why I said "many levels of the
> registration hierarchy".)
> 
> This is pro-competition, pro-consumer, pro-registrar - any registrar
> should welcome these constraints.  It ensures that any registrar who
> behaves ethically and doesn't abuse its customers can solicit the
> customers of those who are unethical/abusive. Since all registrars are
> (or want the appearance of being) ethical, transparent actors serving
> the interests of their customers, who would possibly object?
> 
> However, they won't be put in place unless they are universally applied.
> This is one of those cases where "If I do the right thing, but my
> competitors don't, I'm at a disadvantage." Requiring these as standard
> terms removes that excuse.
> 
> And that's what we should argue for.
> 
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views, if
> any, on the matters discussed.
> 
> This communication may not represent my employer's views, if any, on the
> matters discussed.
> 
> On 08-Apr-13 15:38, Ron Wickersham wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Timothe Litt wrote:
> >
> > These are important and great "rights" you propose.
> >
> >> A decent registrar would pro-rate any remaining term - but I don't
> >> think we can impose that, and a decent registrar wouldn't run afoul
> >> of the language. Anyhow, that's not the big cost.
> >
> > Note that when you change registrars the term of registration doesn't
> > change within the same year, as that date is preserved by the
> > registry. There is a possiblity that multi-year renewals are held by
> > your registrar and only forwarded to the registry on the annual
> > renewal date.
> >
> > I spoke in favor of some of these rights in the limited context of
> > PEDNR (post expiry domain name recovery), and found the registrars
> > argued that uniform rules would interfere with their "competitive"
> > differences as defined by the contract terms in their individual
> > registration agreements with customers.
> >
> > I expect that the rights you outline would be even more vigorously
> > opposed yet we should bring them forward to place on the record that
> > the current "competitive" practices that are changable without notice
> > leave registrants powerless to look out on their own for rights.
> >
> > -ron
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss