AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

  • No labels

4 Comments

  1. Eduardo Diaz

    1] How many people work in the Compliance Dept and how are you organized?

    2] I noticed in the “Notices of Breach, Termination and Non-Renewal and Compliance Related Correspondences” section that some of the notices have been updated and other have not. So for example, what happened to the 280,000 domains that were mentioned in the notice to EstaDomains, Inc in November 7, 2008?

    3] What about the rest in that section?

    Thanks.

    -ed

  2. Rinalia Abdul Rahim

    1. What are the obstacles in incorporating the need for resellers to be bound by the same compliance requirement as registrars in the RAA?

    2. In the requirement to publish breach notice on the website of non-compliant registrars, is it clear that the notice has to be prominently displayed? Does ICANN Compliance check to ensure that the breach notice is prominently displayed?

    Thank you.

    Rinalia

  3. Evan Leibovitch

    1. Most end users and many registrants don't know that substantial regulatory situation of gTLDs compared to ccTLDs, especially considering the many ccTLDs that market themselves as generics (ie., .co and .tv). What is ICANN doing to help complainants regarding registries outside ICANN's direct authority? Does ICANN even publish best practises for ccTLDs in this regard?
    2. I heard Maguay say during the ALAC session that the compliance/enforcement process in place was based on an assumption of self-governance. I take issue with that assumption and challenge it as "accepted wisdom". Self-governance would be appropriate as a model if ICANN was a contracted party industry association (and indeed there are many who already perceive ICANN in that way). However, ICANN's multi-stakeholder model doesn't work that way -- the parties being regulated are only one component of a very broad coalition of communities. So the term "self-regulation" is not only completely inappropriate, it is dangerous to ICANN's public image in that it enforces attitudes that ICANN's processes are captured by the very bodies it claims to regulate.
    3. In light of the above, I believe that the interest of ICANN end-users is best served by abandonment of the incorrect philisophy of "self regulation", replaced with an asserted commitment to the multi-stakeholder model and methods consistent with the Affirmation of Commitments. Doing so would subtly but significantly change the bias of ICANN compliance activity from one of registrar protection to one of public protection. As just a single example -- complaint statistics, which are an issue of fact not opinion, must be open by default and will serve the public interest through provision of transparency and openness mandated by the AoC. It is detrimental to the public interest, and to effective consumer choice and trust, to witthhold complaint data up until a Breach is officially determined.
    4. Olivier's pointing out the technobabble on the "how to complain" page is a significant concern. ICANN has spent considerable resources on simplifying the explanations of "what is a new gTLD", so we know that the ability to talk in plain language exists when the will exists. Get Scott Pinzon involved in the simplification of "what to do if something goes wrong", taking an FAQ approach that first tackles the most common complaints.
    5. Please elaborate (and break down further) the 24% "invalid complaints" as described on slide 6. This is an insufficient explanation for so large a percentage of rejected complaints.
    6. If there are complaints that are legitimate, but outside the scope of Compliance, these MUST be documented as well as the ones that are acted upon. If there are complaints that are deemed out of scope yet still potentially valid, ICANN has an obligation to not let them "fall through the cracks". 

  4. Evan Leibovitch

    Submitted by Rudi Vansnick:

    1. Almost 3 years after the Mexico summit, where I've organised a thematic session entitled "Registries-registrars and abuse of domain names"  I do not see any improvement with regards to the way registrars and especially their resellers are abusing the whois hidden form registrations
    2. Many registrars fail to put correct data in the whois of domain registrations ! My questions is specific with regards of registrars registering ccTLDs where it seems compliancy is less requested !
    3. What has ICANN undertaking to avoid registrars are still having hidden of false information in the whois data of many ccTLD's ?
    4. How ICANN will be able to guarantee the registrant he/she will not be victim of those "criminal resellers networks" behind some specific registrars ?