RE: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS services

["Sapiro, Miriam" <MSapiro@verisign.com>]

Danny - 

I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but your note may have left some folks
with the wrong impression about what I said and the state of play:

-  The first of three consultations that VeriSign plans to hold on
developing a universal Whois database took place on Aug 15, hosted by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It was focused on getting input from business and
IP folks, as well as the law enforcement community.  Efforts were made
several weeks ago to publicize the session, as everyone was most welcome.
The invitation was, for example, sent to the Registrar and Registry
Constituencies.  Our intention was not to exclude anyone, but to focus
different sessions on different audiences.      

-  We are organizing two additional consultations, as well as setting up a
web-based forum for public comment.  The web forum will be particularly
important to ensure that everyone who has views can provide them easily.
The second consultation will focus on getting input from civil liberty
groups, ngos and additional parts of the ICANN community.  The third
consultation will be focused on getting international input.  We will
publicize details as soon as they are available.  Please note that we had
considered whether to schedule a consultation during the ICANN meeting in
Montevideo and concluded, just as some members of the Names Council did at
their meeting, that the schedule is already too packed. 

-  I made clear we welcome input from everyone, whether they represent
technical, policy or other communities.  But we must not confuse this effort
-- to conduct R&D on a universal Whois -- with the myriad of Whois policy
issues now appropriately under discussion by the Whois Committee, the GA and
others.  That debate is now taking place, and will continue, irrespective of
the R&D effort on a universal Whois to which we have committed.  We were not
tasked with setting policy with respect to Whois, but rather conducting R&D
on a possible technical solution for a universal Whois.  When consensus
decisions are made on those policy issues, they should be reflected in
whatever Whois database is in use/development.  

- Let me emphasize again that we welcome input from everyone, by web or in
person.  It would be particularly helpful to our technical team if users
could provide input on their requirements and priorities.  And let me also
reinforce that VeriSign did not "side-step" the GA -- as noted above, other
key parts of the ICANN community will be the focus of future consultations.
And the web forum will be open and accessible to all whom would like to
express views.

Regards, Miriam


Miriam Sapiro
Director of International Policy
VeriSign, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:19 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS
services


This first meeting by VeriSign (one of three scheduled) was designed to
allow 
panelists representing Law Enforcement and Intellectual Property interests
to 
address their concerns (subsequent sessions will allow for representatives
of 
Privacy groups and others to express their views).  A representative for the

FBI pointed out the need for accurate and timely world-wide information.
The 
head of the Intellectual Property Constituency, Steve Metalitz, required 
searchability across a broad spectrum of data fields.  

Information on this centralized WHOIS is to be found at:  
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01
.h

tm

Participants at this meeting noted that neither registrars nor other 
registries were specificly invited to attend, nor were representatives of
the 
DNSO nor the NC WHOIS committee.   The lack of participants from IETF and 
other such groups was also noted.  Miriam Sapiro who headed the Verisign 
panel replied that the meeting was sufficiently publicized.  

It was asked (my question), will VeriSign abide by a consensus decision if 
privacy concerns outweigh the interests of the Intellectual property 
constituency.  I did not find the response to be satisfactory.  

This centralized WHOIS database raises many policy issues, especially with 
regard to privacy.  I would hope that the NC chooses to add this topic to 
their agenda and that policy matters can be resolved and honored prior to 
being presented with a "fait accompli" by VeriSign. 

I continue to be troubled by VeriSign side-stepping the DNSO, and would hope

that they would choose to be more cooperative in the future.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html