[registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow

[Tim Ruiz]

Ricardo, some registrars already use Iron Mountain for offsite data
storage of some kind. And I would guess that some of the data stored is
more sensitive than the Whois data. Remember, the Whois data is publicly
available anyway.


Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow
> From: ricardo at nomer.com.br
> Date: Thu, August 09, 2007 10:32 am
> To: "Registrars Constituency" <registrars at gnso.icann.org>,       
> "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett at networksolutions.com>
> Cc: "Tim Cole" <cole at icann.org>
> 
> Dear Fellows:
> 
> After read the atached letter for me its clear that there is a HUGE conflict
> of interest. An ICANN accredited Registrar to escrow other Registrars ? No,
> sorry. Even with a very specific confidentiality contract and policy... we
> might opt for a diff provider...
> 
> Could you redirect this email to Mike cc Kurt?
> 
> Are the other proposals so weak ???
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Ricardo Vaz Monteiro
> Nomer.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: quinta-feira, 9 de agosto de 2007 11:12
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow
> 
> 
> Registrars:
> 
> The following is an e-mail message from Kurt Pritz regarding ICANN's
> data escrow program.  It appears that ICANN staff has selected Iron
> Mountain as the ICANN preferred provider pending final comments and a
> contract.  Because a division of Iron Mountain actually is an accredited
> registrar, it has supplied -- at ICANN's request -- the attached
> document that shows how it proposes to address any conflicts of interest
> concerns.  I should note that we all have a choice of whether to use the
> ICANN provider (at ICANN's expense) or select an escrow provider of our
> choosing (at our expense) that is approved by ICANN.
> 
> Please provide any comments to the list or directly to Kurt or Mike
> Zupke.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:pritz at icann.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 6:58 PM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon
> Cc: Mike Zupke; Tim Cole
> Subject: Information regarding Data Escrow
> 
> Jon:
> 
> In response to discussions with the Registrar Constituency regarding
> data escrow services, please provide the attached document to the
> constituency members for their review and information.
> 
> After analysis of seven responses to an RFP for the provision of data
> escrow services, Iron Mountain has emerged as the most suitable
> candidate. There were other competent proposals but, balancing the
> criteria provided in the RFP, ICANN has begun negotiations with Iron
> Mountain. Other candidates have been informed that the process is not
> yet closed but these negotiations have started.
> 
> ICANN understood concerns voiced in the RC meeting regarding
> selection of an accredited registrar for this task. Given those
> concerns (and in accordance with best practices anyway) we set out to
> understand all potential conflicts of interest that might exist for
> Iron Mountain. ICANN sent, and Iron Mountain returned for
> distribution to the constituency, the attached questionnaire. We
> think the responses are open and frank. We also believe that these
> responses, the fact that Iron Mountain presently escrows some
> registrar data, and the fact that Iron Mountain's business model is
> predicated on the trust that confidential data will not be compromised
> demonstrate its suitability as a potential service provider. We
> understand that some registrars may opt for a different provider for
> various reasons but hope that those who make that choice understand
> that this appears now to be the best selection for ICANN at this time.
> 
> I hope this is helpful. If there are questions or comments from
> constituency members, please have them forwarded directly to Mike
> Zupke or me.
> 
> As an aside, you will also notice a second section to the
> questionnaire regarding contingency, disaster and failure planning.
> We added this because it was thought that the original RFP did not
> solicit sufficient information in this regard.
> 
> Kurt Pritz
> 
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, #330
> Marina del Rey. CA  90292
> 
> +1.310.301.5809 (office)
> +1.310.400.4184 (mobile)