[registrars] Information regarding Data Escrow

Sun Aug 26 13:12:52 UTC 2007

Rob:  The following was one of the questions and answers in the
disclosure statement.  I agree with you that ICANN should push Iron
Mountain to de-accredit its registrar.  Thanks.  Jon

10.	If the applicant is an ICANN-accredited registrar, would it
terminate, assign, or otherwise divest itself of its accreditation?  

Iron Mountain does not believe that its accreditation in the DNMS
business area is in conflict with its ability to perform the RDE
services to ICANN and the registrars.  We would request that ICANN refer
to the responses in this document about the controls and separation of
our business operations and our response on May 31, 2005 to Mr. Kurt
Pritz about our approval for accreditation.  The link to this letter on
your website is
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/johnson-to-pritz-31may05.pdf. Iron
Mountain is willing to discuss this further with ICANN to understand its
concerns but does not currently plan to terminate, assign or otherwise
divest itself of its accreditation.

________________________________

From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 1:06 PM
To: Jeffrey Eckhaus; registrars at gnso.icann.org
Cc: Tim Cole; Mike Zupke
Subject: RE: [registrars] Information regarding Data Escrow

Jeff,

I believe that part of what Iron Mountain is doing is looking at the
data randomly and verifying that it is complete and correct.  I think
they have to report to ICANN that we have delivered properly formatted
data, and that they look in detail at a subset of it for these purposes.

So while I think your idea is a great one, I don't think it could be
applied here, as Iron Mountain would  need to have the keys.

Rob.

P.S.  Hs anyone thought to ask Iron Mountain to give up their ICANN
accreditation ?    Seems to me that this contract is probably worth much
more to them than the accreditation they are not using.   They might be
willing to just give it up in order to win the contract, thus removing
all competitive concerns.

From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:21 AM
To: registrars at gnso.icann.org
Cc: Tim Cole; Mike Zupke
Subject: [registrars] Information regarding Data Escrow

All, 

I did not see this covered in the questionnaire from Iron Mountain, so
maybe I missed this, but will there be a form of data encryption held by
ICANN only? 

We have been thinking of solutions and one possible solution for the
concerns of Iron Mountain looking at registrar data is using a form of
public key cryptography, where the registrars are all given ICANN's
public key and only ICANN holds the private key.  All of the registrars
will encrypt their data with that public key, and in the event that this
data is necessary, the encrypted data can be delivered to ICANN and they
can use the private key to decrypt it.  This way, even if IRON Mountain
does look at our data, it's useless to them in an encrypted form. Only
ICANN can see the data

If this was covered then I apologize, but if not would like this to be
considered and thoughts from other Registrars

Thanks

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:36 AM
To: registrars at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow

Agreed. All valid issues we'll also consider before selecting ICANN's

agent or another. And the separation issue should likely be covered

whether the agent is currently accredited as a registrar or not, since

that could obviously change.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow

From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett at networksolutions.com>

Date: Fri, August 17, 2007 8:58 am

To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com>,  <registrars at gnso.icann.org>

I am reserving my comments on the escrow program and on Iron Mountain

until a draft contract is available for review. I appreciate that Iron

Mountain has provided answers to a questionnaire about how it would

protect our customer data and how it would address the perceived

conflict or interest situation, but we don't know how that will

translate into a contract. Will Iron Mountain agree contractually to

some sort of structural separation between its registrar business and

this escrow arrangement? What contractual warranties will Iron Mountain

provide that it will protect our customer data and cover us in case of a

breach? Similarly, if ICANN wants to access the data for checking

purposes, what contractual warranties and protections will it provide to

registrars in order to give us comfort that our customer data will be

protected? Perhaps ICANN should be negotiating with the top two bidders

to ensure that the contract is as competitive as possible.

Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org

[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:46 AM

To: registrars at gnso.icann.org

Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Information regarding Data Escrow

Larry, appreciate your concerns.

1) Most likely, yes. Escrowing the beneficial user data behind

private/proxied registrations is not required under the currently

proposed process. But two points about that. First, speaking just for Go

Daddy, while there are a large number of our domain names registered

through Domains by Proxy the majority are not. Second, Domains by Proxy

is willing to escrow the beneficial user data but not likely under the

standard Escrow agreement. So that will be discussed with ICANN and

hopefully worked out soon. And after our experience with assuming the

RegisterFly names, I hope other registrars who offer private/proxied

registrations will consider it as well.

2) You're assuming that Iron Mountain is currently mining data? Our

records show no evidence of that at all. I would suggest that before

making any judgement you look closely at who Iron Mountain is how

they've built their publicly traded company on a worldwide reputation of

trust and security. Corp. Domain management is a small part of their

overall business. It's hard to imagine them sacrificing that reputation

for what little they might gain from data that is otherwise public

anyway.

3) I doubt that ICANN can select a provider that all registrars will be

100% happy with. So there is no requirement to use ICANN's selected

agent. Some are going to use their own agent regardless. Is Iron

Mountain more of a risk just because they are accredited any more so

than another agent who isn't? You may have a different answer to that

than we do. Fortunately, we'll all have a choice.

Bottom line, registrars are under fire right now due to recent events.

We need to get this escrow thing figured out and implemented. If we

delay with the idea that we need a process that 100% of us are 100%

happy with it will never get done.

Tim 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20070826/f6c9bb79/attachment.html>