AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
Comment/Reply Periods (*) | Important Information Links* Public Comment Announcement | ||||||
Comment Open: | 21 March 2012 | ||||||
Comment Close: | 20 April 2012 | ||||||
Close Time (UTC): | 23:59 UTC | ||||||
Reply Open: | 21 April 2012 | ||||||
Reply Close: | 11 May 2012 | ||||||
Close Time (UTC): | 23:59 UTC | ||||||
Brief Overview |
| ||||||
Originating Organization: | GNSO Council | ||||||
Categories/Tags: | Top-Level Domains | ||||||
Purpose (Brief): | On 6 March 2012, the Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team submitted its report | ||||||
Current Status: | The GNSO Council is requesting input on the Fake Renewal Notices Report. | ||||||
Next Steps: | The GNSO Council will review the comments received and consider next steps to address the issue of fake renewal notices. | ||||||
Staff Contact: | Marika Konings | ||||||
Email: | |||||||
Detailed Information |
| ||||||
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose | Fake renewal notices are misleading correspondence sent to registrants from an individual or organization claiming to be or to represent the current registrar. These are sent for a variety of deceptive purposes. The desired action as a result of the deceptive notification is:* Pay an unnecessary fee (fraud)* Get a registrant to switch registrars unnecessarily ("slamming", or illegitimate market-based switching)* Reveal credentials or provide authorization codes to facilitate theft of the domainThe Registration Abuse Policies Working Group discussed this type of abuse in its Final Report
| ||||||
Section II: Background | Prior to acting on the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group to request an Issue Report on fake renewal notices, the GNSO Council decided it would be desirable to gather further information on this issue and it therefore resolved: 'The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council's and its RAPWG deliberations no whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly'. | ||||||
Section III: Document and Resource Links | Fake Renewal Notices Report | ||||||
Section IV: Additional Information | None |
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
DRAFT ALAC Comment on Fake Renewal Notices Report
The ALAC supports action being taken on this issue. The problem has been around for a long time, it has been much discussed, but until this report, nothing has been done.
This problem, although relatively minor compared to some that ICANN and the GNSO must consider, is symbolic of ICANN’s inability to ensure a safe and trusted Domain Name space. Virtually all parties have agreed the Fake Renewal Notice is bad, yet we have been unable, or unwilling to take any sort of action to stop it.
ICANN and the GNSO should take this token issue and use it to demonstrate that it can indeed enact change swiftly and when it is warranted.
With respect to the potential next steps identified in the Drafting Team (DT) Report:
- Add a section to the RAA that addresses Business Practices The ALAC rejects this alternative on two grounds:* It would not take effect for up to five years
- Given the pressure to complete the current round of RAA discussions, it is unlikely that this issue could be included and addressed without delaying the current process – a result that many would consider totally unacceptable.
2. Add the issue to the current or one of the upcoming IRTP PDPs.
The ALAC would consider it acceptable to add this issue to the current IRTP C PDP, but questions whether this is possible given that it was not included in the Issue Report leading to this PDP.
Adding this issue to the next IRTP D PDP is certainly possible, but the delay before even starting would be considerable. IRTP C is currently scheduled to report to the GNSO Council in October 2012. Given the delays associated with GNSO Approval and starting the next IRTP PDP, the new one may optimistically start early in 2013.
3. Add the issue to the upcoming RAA PDP.
Again, this is possible, but it would be one small item in a large and potentially complicated PDP. It is impossible to estimate how long that PDP would take, again delaying this issue indeterminably.
4. Refer the issue to the ALAC to encourage better education and awareness.
The ALAC is neither funded not staffed to undertake such a project. Although At-Large is certainly willing to take the issue and widely disseminate such warnings, any more active action is not possible, and in any case would not likely have the penetration to be even partially successful.
5. Raise the issue with the Federal Trade Commission in the US.
Although this may well address an issue with a particular Registrar as long as they are located in the US, it does not seem to be a very robust solution to the problem.
The ALAC does offer one other alternative that it believes should be carefully considered. Alternative 1, the DT’s preferred approach, is to draft a clause, perhaps patterned after RAA 3.7.3. In fact the DT even goes so far as to try a first draft of the needed clause. The ALAC suggests a dedicated PDP for the Fake Renewal Notice Issue. Although the concept of a PDP seems onerous, if the possible solution is anywhere near as simple as the DT suggests in their preferred solution, such a PDP would require a very minimal amount of work. It would admittedly take about nine months, the minimum estimated elapsed time for the complete PDP process, but the actual staff and volunteer effort would be minimal.
By taking such action, the GNSO would demonstrate that it CAN act quickly when required and the situation allows it. Demonstrating that it is not bound by rules that always take several years to set formal Consensus Policy would send a VERY good and important message to the community.
