Re: [registrars] Registrar Resolution

[Jim Archer <jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the "fly-by-night" description is completely unneeded and 
gratuitous.  There is no generally accepted definition  of that term and I 
think it can be misconstrued as a slight against smaller registrars, or in 
the worst case as the RC trying to make an argument that smaller registrars 
can not be trusted.  Any business entity, large or small, ethical or 
unethical, can fold for a variety of reasons.

I's sure that many of us can recall the "bad acts" of registrar industry 
leaders.  So how about we just drop the "fly by night" stuff, and say 
something like:

> Whereas, registrants must be protected against the potential bad acts of
> registries and registrars;

Also, what has this clause got to do with anything:

> Whereas, registrars only succeed if they provide valuable services to
> their customers;

I don't see that as relevant or a valuable addition to the resolution. 
Every time the resolution strays off topic it looses some of it's impact. 
Also, the fly-by-night stuff makes an unwarranted implication.  I ask that 
the resolution be changed accordingly.

Thanks...

Jim





--On Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:07 AM -0700 Robert Birkner 
<robertb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Whereas, registrars only succeed if they provide valuable services to
> their customers;
>
>
>
> Whereas, registrants must be protected against the potential bad acts of
> âfly-by-nightâ registries and registrars;
>
>
>
> Whereas, it is incumbent on ICANN to protect registrants against the
> potential bad acts of âfly-by-nightâ gTLD registries and registrars;
>
>
>
> Whereas, ICANN Staff has recently formulated a new Compliance Program for
> gTLD Registries and Registrars;
>
>
>
> Whereas, ICANN Staff has recently announced its success in furthering a
> data escrow requirement for gTLD registries
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-05mar07.htm;
>
>
>
> Whereas, ICANN Staff has not yet specified a schedule, terms, or a format
> of a data escrow requirement for gTLD registrars;
>
>
>
> Whereas, many registrars currently secure registrant and domain name data
> through various back-up methods, but that this practice is by no means
> uniform or compulsory across all accredited registrars;
>
>
>
> Whereas, the various back-up methods used by registrars may not be
> sufficient in all cases to assist ICANN Staff in recovering such data in
> the event of registrar business failure; and
>
>
>
> Whereas, recent events have highlighted the need for a registrar data
> escrow program and enhanced compliance efforts with regard to
> requirements in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
>
>
>
> Be it resolved that the undersigned registrars call for ICANN Staff to
> work with the ICANN Registrar Constituency to finalize the terms of a
> gTLD registrar data escrow program; and
>
>
>
> Be it further resolved that the undersigned registrars call for ICANN
> Staff to work with the ICANN Registrar Constituency to improve the
> effectiveness of the ICANN Compliance Program for gTLD Registrars.



*******************************
James W. Archer
CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
http://www.RegistrationTek.com