[registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow

Fri Aug 17 03:39:32 UTC 2007

1) So the escrowed data will show the privacy blocks
that some registrars use instead of the actual owner information?
(If so, what is the benefit of that exactly?)

2) There is a difference in my mind between mining public data and 
having what amounts to bulk access to that data. I don't think you are
saying that you wouldn't mind if I grabbed all the public info from
godaddy's whois, right? You certainly try to block that don't you?

3) Saying that some registrars already use Iron Mountain
for storage of data that is more sensitive is a little like
saying that an amusement park ride is safe because the operator
allows his own children to ride it. Different companies/people have
different tolerance for risk.

As an aside, a company that I previously owned had about
40 or so cartons of paper information stored by an Iron Mountain owned
company years ago. And they actually lost and were never able to
(so far) find those documents. True, they actually lost a few skids of 
paper documents. As of a few years ago they claimed they were still 
trying to find the records and they had no explanation other than "sorry".

(If you would care to see the letter from them stating that, I'd
be glad to share it with you.)

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com

Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 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)