6. Registry policies

Transcription

1 6. Registry policies 6.1 Implementation of the legal framework of July Project to open the.fr TLD to European Union 6.3 Preliminary draft on the opening to IDNs 6.4 Draft Differentiation status and Quality of Service Report after the Consultative Committees 6.5 Situation report on cases of exemptions to the Naming Charter managed by the DG 1 Board Meeting 19 November 2010

2 6.1. Implementation of the legal framework of July 2011 The new legal framework (or lack thereof) will necessarily affect registry policies, for example Litigation Management Eligibility Data access Etc. It will be a legal obligation It will therefore necessarily be the top priority for 2011 But we need to wait 2 Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

3 6.2. Policy for opening the.fr TLD to European Union (1) Reminder: An obligation for the newly appointed Registry to deploy within two years (Article 2 of the Appendix to the Decree of Designation) A commitment by AFNIC "to ensure the quality of the data" used for identification (State / AFNIC Agreement) At its meeting of 16/04/10 the Board of Directors decided to accelerate the implementation of this policy Milestones passed: Draft policy presented to the meeting of the Board of Directors on 11 June 2010 Public consultation during the summer of 2010 Amended draft presented to the consultative committees and working groups during the second half of Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

4 3.1.1 Policy for opening the.fr TLD to European Union (2) Eligibility of adult private individuals and corporations resident in the EU No systematic check - a priori or a posteriori - of the registrations but a check on a sample of new registrations, the stock of domain names, further to a report by a third party, or by self-referral to AFNIC A verification process on 2 levels: 1 st level (within 90 days): AFNIC carries out its own research and only asks the registrar for confirmation when its research produces no results NO DOCUMENT SENT by the registrar: simple confirmation The portfolio of the holder is not frozen on opening the procedure (it can be blocked and deleted if there is no response from the registrar) The whois base is updated when a check is positive 2 nd level (within 90 days): after a reasoned complaint by right holders or when it has the requisite documents, AFNIC asks the registrar to prove the veracity of the information entered DOCUMENT SENT by the registrar The portfolio of the holder is frozen on opening the procedure (freeze enabling DNS changes) The portfolio of the holder can be deleted at the end of this procedure for noncompliance with the Charter 4 Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

5 6.2 Policy for opening the.fr TLD to European Union (3) Changes made in response to feedback received: Withdrawal of the requirement of a person present in France for the administrative contact (enlargement of the European Union) The holder once verified is informed of the opening of the audit 15 days after the registrar The admissibility of complaints is verified before any check is started The sampling and self-referral criteria have yet to be defined Sanctions against the registrar are possible for failure to comply with their contractual obligations, and in case of insufficient processing of Level 1 requests Launch date Implementation for the end of the second half of 2011 Cf. Resolution Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

6 6.3 Preliminary draft on opening to the IDN (1) REMINDER: IDN is not listed in the order of appointment of AFNIC IDN was identified as a priority service by the registrars during the consultative committee meeting held in March 2010 Minutes of the meeting of the AFNIC Board of Directors dated 16 April 2010: "The Director General was requested to submit to Consultative Committees in October 2010 a preliminary draft on the opening of the IDN to the.fr TLD." Milestones passed: Consultation of working groups: 1/03/10 and by on 28/09/10 Consultation of the consultative committees on 14 and 15 October 2010 Draft policy presented to the meeting of the Board of Directors on 19 November Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

7 6.3 Preliminary draft on opening to the IDN (2) The analysis of several surveys conducted by the CENTR shows that: 8 registries have opened to the IDN (against 10) Small percentage of IDN domain names / compared with total number of ASCII domain names (higher % under.jp and.cat): between 2 and 6% No consensus on how to launch If a sunrise period is chosen: priority to trademark owners and holders of ASCII domain names If a "direct" launch is chosen: very little litigation noted (EURid, Denic): no official figures: according to EURid, only 3 cases have been dealt with by the Czech Arbitration Court No cases of phishing noted in IDN (by any of the registries) Very few specific rules set up The reactions of the registrar consultative committee and user meetings held on 14 and 15 October 2010 show that the project is considered medium to low priority but is also seen as politically essential to deploy 7 Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

8 6.3 Preliminary daft on opening to the IDN (3) 2 objectives have been given priority: Choosing a simple policy Articulation with other current registry policies: opening to Europe Proposal: Choice of characters allowed: limitation to French diacritics: â, à, ê, é, è, î, ï, ô, ù, û, ç, No association between ASCII domain names and IDNs No special invoicing No specific rules: application of existing.fr registry policies to IDN domain names (PARL, PREDEC, no anonymity) Use primarily in the xn form - in the registration chain No enlargement of the list of key terms 8 Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

9 6.3 Preliminary draft on opening to the IDN (4) Points for discussion: The opportunity of opening with a sunrise period of the "grandfathering" type: priority of registration of IDN domain names, given to holders of ASCII domain names, for a given period The form of consultation with the community: public consultation on the AFNIC website organisation of a workshop for registrars, right holders etc. Others? Timetable: Consultation of the community: start of 2011 Presentation of the preliminary draft to the consultative authorities: March 2011 Presentation of the draft policy at the meeting of the Board of Directors in April 2011 Implementation: year-end 2011 at the earliest Cf. Resolution Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

10 6.4 Progress report: The differentiation status of registrars (1) Recall of the objective: This project is designed for registrars and resellers of all the.fr services. It was launched in October 2009 and opened for comment on 29/06/2010. The Consultative Committees have changed the project. For users: simplify the choice of a registrar when searching for.fr expertise For registrars: benefit from the promotion and a differentiation factor For AFNIC: Promoting the stakeholders who have the best training and are the most active; Operation: The differentiation status will provide registrars with: the right to use a special logo promoting their expertise special referencing in the AFNIC registrar directory The registrar will be able to assert the use of the differentiation status as long as at least one of its employees has been identified as a referral on the.fr extension, based on the certification of his/her skills during an assessment session. it has signed an endorsement to the registrar contract stating its commitment to offer for sale all the services of the.fr TLD and for a duration related to the use of the said status. 10 Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

11 6.4 Progress report: The differentiation status of registrars (2) Progress in work: The points on which consensus was reached at the last CC meeting The certification concerns a person within a given organisation (i.e. it is not "portable") The status can not be used by resellers or assigned to a registrar that does not sell direct - initially at least The name of the status has yet to be determined Debate between the qualifiers for an offer ("premium") and a skill ("expert") The suggestion has been to discuss the proposals in greater depth and return to the Board of Directors (if necessary by electronic vote) when a proposal has been finalised. Possible date for the 1 st assessment session: end of 2 nd half of 2011? Cf. Resolution Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

12 6.4 Progress report: the Service Quality barometer (1) Recall of the objective: Have a registrar Quality of Service Report published by a neutral party for the user: to know the performance and market positioning of the various providers, according to objective and quantifiable criteria known to all. for the registrars: to have a reference point in relation to the competition, and to check that their market position is correct The project was launched in October 2009 and opened for comment on 29/06/2010. Operation: A process with 2 phases => Questionnaire to a sample of registrants + Actions. Cf. the following tables 12 Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

13 6.4 Progress report: the Service Quality barometer (2) General classification Data sorted using a composite index combining the global satisfaction and recommendation rates. Trends are measured since the last publication of the barometer. Registrar Price category Clarity of information Registrar Score Administrative and technical support The questions and measures will result in four main marks and 1 optional depending on the activity of the registrar: Registrar Score Customer Service (out of 5) Clarity of information (out of 5) Legal and technical support (out of 5) Business conduct (out of 5) DNS hosting (optional criterion - out of 5) DNS hosting Registrar Score 13 Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

14 6.4 Progress report: the Service Quality barometer (3) The discussions of the Registrar Committee: Consensus on the lack of differentiation between members / nonmembers concerning access to the Report (no different admission fees) Strong opposition against AFNIC being allowed to contact (even via a neutral party) its customers to know their degree of satisfaction => risk of confusion, of generating supportive calls, etc. Opposition also against customers being allowed to go through resellers to be integrated in the same way as direct customers in the analysis => reputational risk for the registrar, difficulty in obtaining a representative sample by reducing the spectrum a possible alternative: proceed by sampling a large population: if the respondent has a domain name, continue with the questionnaire it may lead to a list of "non registrars" (resellers, end-customer contacts only) Given the penetration rate of domain names, anticipate a high cost Cf. Resolution Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

15 6.5 Situation report on cases of exemptions to the Naming Policy managed by the DG Cf. enclosed mandate This discussion item was requested by the Board of Directors as after the electronic vote in July 2010 seeking to amend the current exemption. With the recent decision of the Constitutional Council, it is proposed to postpone this discussion 15 Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010

16 Registry policies See the "large format" road map in the folder Cf. Resolution Confidential / Board of Directors Board Meeting 19 November 2010