For any of us who have been frustrated by ICANN's seeming unwillingness to enforce many of the issues surrounding domain registration, we now have some answers: ICANN admits that the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) is missing authority over many issues that "were not contemplated when the RAA was written."
ICANN's July magazine, which references highlights of its June newsletter, includes a section titled "Why Domain Name Issues are Not Always a Matter of Contractual Compliance" which reads in part:
"The parties engaged in some of the new practices that the ICANN community is studying do not involve the actions of contracted parties (registrars or registries) exclusively. Hence, the RAA and the registry agreements do not always provide neat solutions to current issues. Some issues are more appropriately addressed through the enactment of new policies or RAA amendments, while other issues are clearly outside of ICANN's mission. Some issues can be addressed by ICANN outside of the contractual compliance role or by other parts of the Internet community."
The section is almost certainly a response to scathing commentary from Brian Krebs that appeared on the Washingon Post blog Security Fix back in May. Krebs noted that research had determined that the majority of spam came from domains registered with false WHOIS information. The Standard's own Ian Lamont wondered last month whether ICANN would take action against one of the worst offenders, a Chinese registrar that has registered tens of thousands of spam sites, most with blatantly false WHOIS information.
ICANN has mastered passing the buck when it comes to enforcement, whether the RAA has clearly defined rules about the issues or not. Having personally tried to get them to enforce issues with ENOM squatting on domains and demanding hundreds of dollars to renew when one of their resellers failed to transfer domains as requested, I don't think that ICANN's proposed changes to the RAA will change anything when it comes to forcing registrars to abide by the terms they are supposed to be governed by.
More news, commentary, and predictions from The Industry Standard:
Comments
A little one-sided Cyndy. What the newsletter was explaining was the simple lines along which the contractual compliance department of ICANN can act. It doesn't have the ability to step outside what is in the RAA - that's just how it is.
Now, if you think that's wrong, the beauty of the ICANN model is that you can change that situation - if you can persuade enough of the rest of the Internet community. There has been a very wide and very public review of the RAA and a final report on the first set of changes is current out for public review (just click here to make your comments on it known: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200808.html#dpc-raa-2008).
There is going to more review of the RAA. If you want it changed, then you need to get involved in those discussions. Writing blog posts may help raise awareness of the issue, but changes are only going to be made if you get involved in the actual processes. And this is the important thing - there is nothing to stop anyone getting involved.
If you are thinking even more radically and you think the compliance department should have wider enforcement powers than it currently has, well then that may also be changed. But, again, it is for the community to ask for it, the community to idiscuss it and the community to come up with what changes to make. That is how ICANN is run. It may seem unusual - and it is - but this really is a case of if you want to change the system, you just have to turn up and get involved, start putting your points across.
The two main methods ICANN has for that is public comment periods - see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/, and physical meetings. The RAA comment period is open until 4 August - your name isn't there yet I see. The next meeting is in Cairo in November. If you can't attend, I would be happy to explain the various remote participation options that are available.
As for your comment about "almost certainly a response to scathing commentary from Brian Krebs" - that is explicitly addressed in the June compliance newsletter - see here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-200806.html#unchanged-whois. All of the registrars mentioned (and many others besides) have received notices from ICANN. ICANN is doing its job.
Basically, if you think ICANN is toothless, it's up to you and others like you to give it teeth. I hope you feel it is worth the effort.
If you or your readers have any questions of queries I can be contacted at [firstname].[lastname]@icann.org.
Cheers
Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN
What planet are you from Karen ???
<"Basically, if you think ICANN is toothless, it's up to you and others like you to give it teeth">
LOL
R-i-g-h-t
ICANN has no interest in the public. Now Registrars, that is another matter.
FOUR MONTHS have passed since you slapped ENOM, XIN NET, etc wrists.
Amazed ICANN even did that.
Toothless is too kind an adjective.
ICANN toothless? no they dont even have the gums to place 3rd teeth. Instead they like to party with the criminals who are raking in billions with cybercrime in India! The lawlessness of the internet reminds of the situation of the high seas when Britain and Spain sent their pirates into the oceans to rob and plunder.
Only now the pirates of today are the leftovers of the Warshaw-pact state´s secret service agents who joined forces with organized crime!
IMHO : ICANN is skating on thin ice.
With recent events in botnets, cybersquatting, rogue registrars, and fraudulent domain tasting, there is a real and imminent threat to society that cannot be dismissed nor ignored. Cyberwar is not a matter of "if" ... it's a matter of when. ICANN is sitting in the pivot position to go one way... or the other.
Any other entity so closely perceived [by many] as aiding and abetting criminal activities would have been terminated by the Justice department long before now. How they have managed to elude detection and investigation to this point is obvious, yet elusive. They cannot be allowed to avoid returning accountability to the DNS and registrar process in the face of today's ever-increasing deceptive and dangerous online practices. Unlike prior years of spam and annoyance, people have started to DIE because of current conditions. Once a situation begins to incur human deaths, people start taking it seriously.
IMHO ICANN needs to be dismantled and restructured so that it actually does what it's supposed to do -- or else step aside and let a better structure do it successfully.
The time for debate, feasibility or sruvey is long over.
The time for action, before it's too late, is NOW.
And, rest assured, at some point soon, it will indeed, be too late.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Thanks for reading
I have attempted to be as brief as possible. However, I am at your service to clarify, reinforce, and demonstrate any statement made above.
Questions?
See: http://www.KnujON.com/news/
Post new comment