new RAA Subsection 3.15:
3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to
Registrar that ICANN has published a webpage that
identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities,
and the content of such webpage is developed in
consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a link
to the webpage on any website it may operate for
domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to
its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its
links to policies or notifications required to be displayed
under ICANN Consensus Policies.
I understand this provision was in part a response to Vittorio Bertola's suggesting a few years back that registrant rights should be clearly listed in contracts (ALAC apparently did nothing to follow up on the idea, but this was added as a nod). But as responses go, the GNSO's text seems a bit underwhelming. IF staff decide to do something that should have been done long ago, AND they do it in consultation with registrars, there should be a web link. Yipee.
I wanted to hear more about what specifically might constitute a reasonable set of rights and responsibilities (hopefully not to include over the top WHOIS commitments). And about whether we could imagine some baseline level of harmonization, a standardized set of minimum protections---as Vittorio noted in a post to the IGF rights and principles group's list---akin to airline passengers' rights in the EU. Or, if harmonization is deemed by registrars to be too intrusive on commercial practices and too insensitive to varying registrar practices and conditions, what about a model set that enlightened registars could visibly opt in on to attract customers?
A couple days ago, Tim Ruiz proposed a new motion for passing the RAA amendments when we vote again this Wednesday. Inter alia, it calls for a Drafting Team to identify those issues that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA, so maybe at that point such questions would be considered. My third hand understanding is that registrars previously expressed openness to maybe potentially considering a code of practice, but only if the RAA amendments package were approved first. But as I've not heard much about consumer protection since joining the counsel and out there in the world the levels of protection vary widely, it seemed reasonable to want to get a better sense of the intentions and future direction on such matters at the front end, rather than just signing a blank check that allows the rest of the amendments to go forward while nothing gets done on registrant rights.
Anyway, this morning Tim wrote to us lobbying for our votes so the amendments pass Wednesday. I outlined in reply my concerns and asked whether something couldn't be done to build in an assurance that work will commence on registrant rights. He replied that a number of registrars would be ready and willing to work on baseline rights, noting in particular the post-expiry deletes issue, and suggested that perhaps we can make specific mention of this within the motion to set the stage for pursuing it sooner than later.
In short, we're now in a situation where, having withheld support, registrars may be willing to negotiate with us wording that would create momentum for work on registrant rights. This seems promising to me. But of course, we would need to a) wordsmith an amendment pledging that the drafting team or whomever will seriously and promptly address the matter, and then b) come up with some clear thinking about exactly what rights (and responsibilities) we might ultimately want established.
Of course, if nobody else thinks this is a particularly useful initiative, i.e. that there's more risk than potential benefit, then I can drop it, but it seemed like there was an opening to make a small difference.
If instead people think this is worth considering, it would be great if on Tuesday we could come to some consensus on these matters within the constituency, prior to the vote on Wednesday.
Ok?
Bill