Danny Younger wrote:
>
> If I understand Jon correctly the issue is that
"ICANN has
> never implemented a schedule, terms, or a format of the
> escrow arrangement".
>
> While I suppose that I could ask Mike Zupke to detail
the
> reasons why Staff has not yet acted to implement data
escrow
> arrangements, frankly I thought that it was the Board's
duty
> to take responsibility for continued Staff inaction...
I thought that the question was related to have details on
the data escrow,
or other registrar issues, related to the case in point,
that's why I
redirected your query.
If, on the other hand, we want to keep it on general policy,
my personal
opinion is that there is room for improvement in the way
ICANN has handled
the data escrow. See additional remarks below.
>
> As a reminder, this inaction has persisted since
November
> 2001 when the registrar data escrow testbed was first
> proposed, and even though ICANN has data escrow listed
as a
> project under its current operational plan, we have yet
to
> see this particular project take shape.
Again, with the caveat that this is only my personal
opinion, having
participated as member of CORE to the initial testbed, I
have mixed feelings
about the practicability on a global level of the escrow
mechanism, for two
reasons: first,
scalability, second, local legislation (including, but not
limited to, data
privacy).
It is probably out of scope to enter in too much detail
here, but what makes
me think is that ICANN would never have the resources to
manage directly
escrow data, and therefore a mechanism that involves a third
party must be
put in place. What was reasonable for 5 testbed registrars,
is much less
reasonable for the hundreds we have now. So, on this I am in
synch with
Karl.
>
> Roberto, as a Board Director your duty is to act in the
best
> interests of ICANN. I would argue that ICANN's
interests
> would be well served by a data escrow arrangement that
would
> also protect and serve the public interest.
I agree that my duty is to act in the best interest of ICANN
(and if you
have reasons to believe that I have not done so until now,
please let me
know, so I can improve), I also agree that ICANN has to take
into account
also the public interest, but for the reason above I have
serious doubts
that data escrow is the best answer. Since the discussion is
going on right
now on the Board, maybe we could benefit from some input on
this item.
>
> Perhaps we could encourage you to investigate the
current
> status of the data escrow project... it would certainly
add
> to our appreciation of ICANN's commitment to
transparency if
> project details could soon be released.
Thanks for the encouragement ;>)
But that's exactly what, not only myself, but the whole
Board is doing right
now. While staff is dealing with the practical issue, trying
to reduce the
grief for the registrants, and taking concrete action with
the registrar,
the Board is dealing with the general political issue. I do
expect some
statement soon. Also, we all know that this will be one of
the hot topics at
the Lisbon public forum, which is little more than 4 weeks
away.
Best regards,
Roberto
|
icann.org> wrote:
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
> >
> > My question to you: Is the registrar community
> generally in
> > compliance with data escrow provisions, or do we
> still have a
> > major problem that remains unaddressed by ICANN's
> Compliance Staff?
>
> The best person to ask, as you probably know, is
> Mike Zupke.
> I encourage you to do so, should the answer by Jon
> not be sufficient.
>
> Regards,
> Roberto
>
>
____________________________________________________________
________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
