President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey today called for major review
of ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA) and the Accreditation
process.
“What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made
it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation
process and the content of the RAA” he said. “This is going to
be a key debate at our Lisbon meeting scheduled for 26 - 30 March 2007. There
must be clear decisions made on changes. As a community we cannot put this
off.”
“ICANN introduced competition to the domain name market in
1998. Back then there was one registrar. There are now over 865. That’s
a good thing because it has made domain names cheaper and offered more choice.
But the RAA was designed and signed when the domain name market was much smaller.
The market now supports about 70 million generic TLD names and is growing.” Dr
Twomey said.
“Registrants suffer most from weaknesses in the RAA and
I want to make sure that ICANN’s accreditation process and our agreement
gives us the ability to respond more strongly and flexibly in the future” he
said.
“What is presently happening with RegisterFly makes it clear that
there are also some problems with proxy registrations. Specifically, proxy
registrations are available as a choice, but people who have them have great
difficulties getting access to their data and having their domain name transferred
where a registrar is uncooperative or has other problems with transfer. ICANN
has had difficulty accessing this data too,” Dr Twomey said.
“We
need to expedite data escrow. There has been a long and detailed discussion
and much interaction between ICANN staff and registrars on this issue. But
we need to reach a conclusion. Recent events and the Lisbon meeting present
that opportunity. There are resource implications and useage rules that need
to be discussed among the ICANN community. I look forward to the continuing
efforts and collaboration of registrars with ICANN in that regard ” he
said.
“Registrants clearly want ICANN to have more capacity to access
data on their behalf if there are significant problems with their registrar.
There is a need for better enforcement mechanisms and an ability for ICANN
to intervene more quickly if a registrar fails or is engaged in damaging business
practice” he
added.
“There’s also no way that registrants can measure the performance
of registrars in any independent comparative way. That should be encouraged” Dr
Twomey said.
“The vast majority of ICANN’s accredited registrars
offer high levels of service and integrity. But as we have seen, there is the
risk that poorly performing registrars can hurt registrants very significantly.
If the domain name industry wants to remain community self –regulating
as it has been until now we need to put in place further sensible and practical
measures to protect registrants” he noted.
Dr Twomey said he would like
to see the following issues included in any discussion:
-
Purpose of Register Accreditation Policy and Agreement
-
What is the primary purpose of the Registration Accreditation Agreement?
Is it a compliance tool? If so how can it be strengthened to protect registrants?
-
Rating of Registrars
-
How should ICANN and/or the registrar constituency encourage a system that
rates registrars according to customer service and performance and should
this be available to registrants?
-
Affiliated Registrars / Group ownership
-
Affiliated registrars have common ownership or control. What is the best
mechanism for ICANN to hold affiliated registrars accountable for an affiliate’s
actions?
-
Additional compliance enforcement tools
-
Stronger compliance tools need to be included in any reform to the RAA.
What are those tools? Do they encompass liquidated damages? Should registrars
be able to be suspended more readily? Are there other options? What are the
mechanisms that allow such options to be enforced quickly?
-
Transfer policy
-
What elements of the transfer policy need to be reformed? Should registrants
have an alternative to their current registrar for the issuing of authcodes
and the unlocking of them? Should ICANN or another entity be able to do this?
-
Registrar operator skill testing
-
How is it possible to assess registrar skills and to train registrars to
a common standard of performance upon which registrants can rely?
-
Accreditation by purchase
-
It is possible for companies to ‘avoid’ accreditation application process
by buying a registrar. How can abuse of this loophole be stopped?
-
Proxy registrations
-
There needs to be an examination of proxy registrations in light of difficulties
faced in registrar data recovery. What is the balance between privacy and
disclosure?
-
Reseller liability under RAA
-
What tools are needed to ensure better accountability by resellers to registrants?
-
Registrar data escrow
-
What data needs to be escrowed? If implementation needs to move faster,
greater resource allocation is required. What level of resourcing is necessary?
-
Clarification of ICANN's responsibilities and the options available to
registrants
-
ICANN recently posted a guide for registrants on its website but additional
consumer options (outside ICANN) should be identified for and provided to
registrants. Is there a need for a new entity to assist customers and intervene
on behalf of their concerns?
“All ICANN stakeholders need to be involved in this debate. But in particular
I would like to see registrars and registrants actively engaged in the discussion,” Dr
Twomey said. “It is in their interests to make sure that poor practice
is driven from the process and that the protection of registrants is increased.”
Media
Contacts:
Jason Keenan
Media Adviser
ICANN ( USA)
Ph: +1 310 818 9072
E:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
International: Andrew Robertson
Edelman ( London)
Ph: +44 7921 588 770
E:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
