NARALO Teleconference for April 2008
Summary Minutes
Present: E Leibovitch, D Thompson, D Younger, W Seltzer, G Shearman, S Caras, B Brendler
Staff: S Burnette, F Teboul, N Ashton-Hart
Minutes Taken By: ICANN Staff (N Ashton-Hart)
S Burnette was invited by the Chair to briefly review her position and introduce the activities of ICANN with respect to compliance. After a brief introduction the floor was opened for D Younger to introduce his questions.
D Younger asked if there would be full disclosure of breach notices related to data escrow obligations. S Burnette stated that she intended that to be the case, and noted that in the past she was not sure that non-payment-related breaches were posted – though most breach notices in the past were related to non-payment.
D Younger asked what had happened with the WHOIS Reporting System. S Burnette noted that the problem resulted from a very large volume of reports in a single day. The system had been configured so that this problem would not recur. She noted that those who report WHOIS issues were now receiving replies from the system on their reports. Further improvements to WDPRS were envisaged as part of the new budget year.
S Burnette noted that ICANN was receiving more than 50,000 WHOIS problem reports. ICANN proposed to step up efforts to follow-up each report filed, asking the registrar what had been done with the report, what happened to the domain name.
W Seltzer noted that this sounded like an opportunity for creating DoS attacks. S Burnette noted that the interaction was partially automated, but there would be checking by staff to ensure that the system was not being abused – at the present there are problems with spam reports that are filtered out. S Burnette noted that there was thought being put into ensuring the system was not maliciously used.
D Younger asked if rate limitation was an issue for WHOIS. As an example he noted that there were WHOIS services from some registrars who limit queries from the same host and would this impact the WDPRS? S Burnette noted that this was possible but she would need to check.
B Brendler asked if the press had written about the compliance activities being undertaken. If the reports about various registrars could be visible enough then it might be helpful to consumers in choosing a registrar. S Burnette said so far not really, but it is a good idea to try and ensure that more visibility about registrar activities was valuable.
D Younger followed up noting that there weren’t that many sanctions available under the current RAA. Does S Burnette have any knowledge about these elements of the proposed RAA amendments? She said that she understands that more will be forthcoming at the end of the month and that more enforcement tools are to be expected. She understands that the additional tools being discussed are: temporary suspension as well as liquidated damages. The arbitration clause is proposed to remain.
E Leibovitch asked what the proposed regional presence for compliance was meant to involve. S Burnette replied that it has proved difficult in some regions for linguistic reasons and there was a need for local experience with the business realities in different regions. Asia/Pacific was a region where this was seen as particularly valuable. There was also a need for an eastern US presence – probably based in the Washington DC area – so that, for example, auditors could visit sites with shorter delays than would otherwise be possible.
D Younger asked about why there had never been any enforcement of the expired domain deletion policy. S Burnette noted that the expired domain deletion policy was meant to address an NSI issue whereby expired domains would sit in a pool unavailable to anyone. The policy was drafted to ensure that this didn’t continue to happen. She understood that some registration agreements consent to having a third-pay the fee if they didn’t pay it. D Younger asked if this kind of agreement could override a consensus policy. S Burnette noted that she hoped that if there were any examples of a registration agreement that was contrary to the policy that it be sent to her so she can investigate it.
The Chair thanked Stacy for joining the call and welcomed any future opportunities for interaction.
The Chair noted the agenda items. W Seltzer noted that there would be a board retreat soon and she would welcome any input from the NA region for that meeting.
The Chair asked for clarification about the nature of the discussion about the Front Running issue she raised for At-Large at the recent board meeting. She noted that the issue was discussed seriously but decided to send it to the GNSO. She noted that this demonstrated that GNSO representation for At-Large was essential, as being an Advisory Committee didn’t cut it.
The Staff noted that it had heard comments that there was a need to do further research to gather evidence of the practice and this might have influenced the Board discussion. W Seltzer noted that D Michel in particular had cast doubt on whether or not the practice was actually happening during the Board meeting.
The Chair asked if any further steps should be taken or would NARALO monitor the GNSOs actions. It was decided to see what the GNSO did before taking further steps.
The Chair noted with respect to outreach events some suggestions had been made about attending various events for outreach. B Brendler had also suggested several ideas including a whiteboard tool.
The Staff was asked to report on which budget proposals had been put through and it was made clear that all proposals received had been submitted. The Staff indicated that budget allocation for three outreach events per region had already been proposed. The Chair asked NARALO participants to consider which three events should be considered for outreach activity in the NA region.
The Chair drew the attention to the list of 36 suggested policy topics proposed by D Younger to the ALAC list April 2, and asked the region to review these and suggest onlist any issues that they wanted to work on personally.
D Younger asked if a transcript would be available of the GNSO sessions. The Staff noted that it would find out.
W Seltzer said that New GTLDs was a really important subject and At-Large in general, and NARALO in particular, should really respond.
The Staff noted that the ALAC had resolved that a community position should be adopted as a matter of priority. W Seltzer noted that a true consensus position would be difficult but that showing the range of views to the Board was important.
The Chair asked if there was Any Other Business, subject to deferring the Accountability Framework for a later time.
