Comments on ICANN Guidelines

[Peter Gerrand <ceo@melbourneit.com.au>]

Section I.D.4
This section states 'Domain name applicants should have an opportunity 
to register names on behalf of third parties who wish to remain anonymous.'

*This would be a very poor policy for the following reasons:
1) It would encourage and facilatate cyberpiracy, warehousing and
infringement of intellectual property in domain names.
2) It would facilitate criminal use of websites for initiating fraudulent
transactions, and thereby bring the Net into disrepute for eCommerce.

Section I.E.4
* In our experience many domain name holders do not keep their contact 
details up to date, and consequently can be difficult to contact at time
for renewal. Registrars may need to keep in contact with their customers on 
a regular basis (e.g.every 6 months) to ensure that contact information 
is kept up to date. 

Section II.

Q5
* Another important issue is password (or registry key) access to allow 
modification of registry data. Apart from the end user, who should have
access to this password: the registry administrator?, the registrar?,
ICANN? All of the above? 
This is an important principle to resolve because if the registry keys were
compromised a great deal of damage would  be done to the domain name system. 
What should happen with registry keys 
when a domain name holder changes from one registrar to another? Should the 
registrars even have access to the registry keys? What if a domain name 
holder loses her/his registry key?

Section II.D
Q7-9  The CORE eligibility criteria had the virtue of being objectly
measurable.
Q9. Setting a threshold for liquidity is a reasonable requirement to
promote the commercial and operational stability of the DNS.  A threshold
of US$100,000 seems quite reasonable.

Q10. While the principle is fine, the criteria set out in III.B.3 would be
very difficult to apply in practice in many countries. Furthermore if a
public listed company is a registrar, it will have little control over its
minority shareholders. It seems unfair to delist a registrar simply because
an untrusty individual has acquired 5% of their shareholding. 


Section II.F

Q17
* The data elements to be submitted by registrars to the registry 
administrator must satisfy a standardised format otherwise there will be
problems 
with data interchange. 

Q18
* The monthly data escrow will only be acceptable if the registry 
administrator holds the current delegation details. If the system is 
structured such that the registrar's database is the master database for 
delegation information (instead of the registry administrator) then more 
frequent data escrow periods - e.g. weekly - will be required.

Q19
* Only defined fields from the registrar electronic records essential to
registration and delegation should be subject to data escrow requirements.  

Q20
* If registrars were granted exclusive rights to the registry data they 
generate there could be negative implications when a domain holder wishes
to transfer 
to another registrar. Registrars should be subject to a license condition
that 
if another registrar takes over (or renews) a domain name they must transfer 
ownership of registration details to the new registrar (for no cost or at
most a minor 
cost-related transfer fee).  

Q24
* Anonymous holding of SLDs is a poor policy, for reasons given above. 
In addition it is important that the domain holder can be contacted for 
renewal or maintenance purposes.

Q25
* Anonymous holding of SLDs should not be considered. 
1) It would encourage and facilatate cyberpiracy, warehousing and
infringement of intellectual property in domain names.
2) It would facilitate criminal use of websites for initiating fraudulent
transactions, and thereby bring the Net into disrepute for eCommerce.

Q26 Yes

Q27 No  - ICANN must have governance for formulation of Codes of Conduct,
and their enforcement.

Q29.  The Code of Conduct can best be enforced through the penalty of
terminating a registrar's or registry's licence. External dispute
resolution processes can be used to resolve appeals.

Section IV Second paragraph: 
*A one year term for accreditation is far too short a term to promote
stability in the DNS. A five year term, subject to early termination for
failing to meet basic licence conditions is more appropriate.


IV.3.d
* The registrar should also submit the billing contact details to the 
registry administrator or ICANN in the case of a registrar business failure 
to allow a smooth transition to another registrar.


Section IV.9.g.vi
* "Protection from unauthorized access" only makes sense if the Personal
Data is not 
publicly available through a whois service.
------------------------------------------------------------

~~~~~~~~~~ooOOoo~~~~~~~~~ 

Peter Gerrand
CEO, Melbourne IT and
Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne
T: +61 3 9344 9300
F: +61 3 9347 9473
W: www.MelbourneIT.com.au