Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Michael and all assembly members, stakeholder/users, or other interested
parties,

  Thank you Michael for following up on this.  I shall pass this proposal
on to our [INEGroup] members as well as I am cc'ing the fledgling
ICANNATLARGE.ORG-without-a-resolving-Domain-Name
organization as well..

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> On October 23rd I submitted my personal comments to the Whois Task Force,
> see
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html.
> Listed below are my personal recommendations for the Whois Task Force based
> upon my earlier comments.
>
> Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
> Recommendations Preamble
>
> The current Whois system fails to adequately meet the needs and concerns of
> governments, intellectual property owners, domain name registration
> authorities, as well as consumer and privacy advocacy groups. Although one
> can attempt to solve certain aspects of the current problems in a piecemeal
> fashion, only a comprehensive bottoms-up review and overhaul is likely to
> succeed.
>
> ICANN’s role in this and other potential global policy issues should be to
> identify and bring to the table those individuals and parties potentially
> impacted by its processes, particularly those in developing countries that
> may not have their voices and concerns heard in the current structure, as
> well as registration authorities that are signatories to bi-lateral
> contracts with ICANN. ICANN’s role is not, nor should it be, to artificially
> manufacture consensus under the auspices of Task Forces.
>
> The ICANN Names Council Whois Task Force (Task Force) should be commended
> for its pioneering efforts in starting a constructive dialogue on some of
> the complex issues surrounding Whois.  However, the Task Force’s failure to
> address certain fundamental issues directly bears upon the validity of the
> Task Force’s ultimate recommendations. In light of these shortcomings, the
> following recommendations are submitted.
>
> Recommendation 1
>
> Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months to
> undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;
>
> Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October 14,
> 2002 in which four (4) interim recommendations were put forth for public
> comment;
>
> Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
> members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
> addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force’s
> recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural and
> local law and their impact on registration authorities that are signatories
> to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME); evolving
> technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations; and
> ICANN’s Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the
> public sector (governments).
>
> Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council:
>
> Extend it heartfelt appreciation to the members of the Task Force for their
> diligent and tireless efforts to date;
>
> Immediately dissolve the Task Force;
>
> Reject implementing the proposed recommendation at this time until further
> review can be conducted incorporating those data points not properly
> considered by the Task Force;
>
> Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that it create a Blue Ribbon Global
> Whois Panel (Panel) to ensure that the viewpoints and concerns of all
> Internet stakeholders are addressed, with such Panel ideally being composed
> of the following representatives:
>
> GAC Representative: This representative shall provide the Panel with the
> various viewpoints (consensus if possible) regarding governmental positions
> regarding access and accuracy of Whois data (i.e. data privacy, law
> enforcement, consumer protection, etc.)
>
> ITU Representative: Although the ITU is currently a participating member in
> the GAC, their experience in two areas would be of particular value to the
> Panel: (i) in the area of soliciting and representing the viewpoints of
> emerging countries and economies that may not have a representative voice in
> the current process and (ii) in the area of promoting the role of ITU Member
> States in the internationalization of domain names and addresses of their
> respective languages.
>
> ICANN Registry Representative: This representative would be tasked with
> soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registry operators to provide the
> Panel with firsthand operational considerations.
>
> ICANN Registrar Representative: This representative would be tasked with
> soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registrars to provide the Panel
> with a better understanding of the legal and technical dynamics of the
> domain name registration marketplace.
>
> ccTLD Registry Operator/Administrator: This representative would be tasked
> with soliciting input from the ccTLD registry operator/administrator
> regarding Whois policies and national laws.
>
> Civil Libertarian: This representative would be tasked with representing the
> interests of individual domain name registrants, specifically with regard to
> a wide range of privacy issues.
>
> IETF/IAB Technical Representative: This representative would be able to
> provide the Panel with insight regarding standards efforts currently
> underway in connection with Whois (CRISP) and international domain names.
>
> Multi-National Business Representative: This individual would be tasked with
> soliciting input from large multi-national businesses regarding concerns
> about diverse and divergent Whois practices and the importance of Whois in
> law enforcement and intellectual property rights.
>
> SME Business Representative: This representative would be required to
> solicit and provide the viewpoint of small and medium enterprises regarding
> Whois considerations.
>
> Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that ICANN extend invitations to
> potential Panel participants to prevent any partisan politics that may exist
> within the various ICANN constituencies. In the alternative, ICANN should
> also consider outsourcing the coordination of this Panel to a neutral third
> party organization with expertise in this subject matter similar to the work
> undertaken by the World Intellectual Property Organization in connection
> with the initial draft of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). One
> potential neutral third party with expertise in this area would be the
> Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
>
> Recommendation 2
>
> Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months to
> undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;
>
> Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October 14,
> 2002 in which four (4) interim recommendation were put forth for public
> comment;
>
> Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
> members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
> addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force’s
> recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural and
> local law and their impact on registration authorities that are signatories
> to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME); evolving
> technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations; and
> ICANN Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the public
> sector.
> Whereas, notwithstanding the aforementioned shortcoming of the Task Force’s
> efforts, there were several concepts would could be implemented in the short
> term that would increase the accuracy of the Whois data.
>
> Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council respectfully request that
> the ICANN Board take the following actions:
>
> ICANN approve a standardize Whois Accuracy Inquiry Notice (WAIN) prepared by
> ICANN accredited registrars in consultation with domain name representatives
> regarding inquires about false or inaccurate Whois data;
>
> ICANN assist in translating the WAIN into as many languages as possible;
>
> ICANN require that registrars shall send the standardized WAIN to their
> domain name registrant after receiving a notification of potentially false
> or inaccurate Whois data from ICANN’s Internic.net whois portal (or
> equivalent);
>
> ICANN accredited registrars shall be required to send any WAIN in the
> language(s) of the registration agreement, along with links to translations
> of the WAIN in other languages;
>
> The current 15 day time frame for registrants to respond to inquiries
> regarding the accuracy of the Whois data shall be extended to 30 days to
> provide the registrant and registrar adequate time to investigate and
> respond to inquiries;
>
> Registrars shall be required to comply with ICANN instructions regarding the
> docketing software maintained in connection with the Internic.net whois
> portal (or equivalent);
>
> Registrars that are unable to verify the accuracy of the Whois data or fail
> to receive instructions from the registrant within thirty (30) days shall
> place the domain name of hold (i.e. the name is removed from the zone file
> and it will not resolve) indefinitely;
>
> Registrar shall not remove the domain name from hold status or renew the
> domain name until registrant has provided documented proof which the
> registrar shall be required to retain;
>
> In the situation where the registrar receives a secondary inquiry regarding
> the accuracy of Whois data for a specific domain name, the Registrar shall
> require documented proof from the domain name registrant within the 30 day
> time frame or have the domain name places on indefinite hold in accordance
> with the process described above;
>
> ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require
> third parties submitting Whois accuracy inquiries to acknowledge that the
> submission is not intended to interfere with the lawful operations of the
> domain name registrant or registrar;
>
> ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require that
> third parties provide additional contact information to allow the domain
> name registrant or registrar to initiate legal action against the third
> party if such submission was designed to tortuously interfere with their
> legal activity.
>
> ICANN’s General Counsel and Staff are instructed to move forward with
> implementation of the above referenced recommendations as follows:
>
> Option 1:
>
> A bi-lateral amendment to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
> executed by ICANN and every accredited registrar. However, if one or more
> registrars fail to execute this bi-lateral amendment proceed to Option 2
> below.
>
> Option 2:
>
> Establish a dialog with the registrar community to see if consensus exists
> among the accredited registrars about adopting the above referenced
> recommendations within the context of a Code of Conduct. If there is
> consensus among the registrars about adopting this proposal as a Code of
> Conduct, this Code of Conduct would then be unilaterally enforced against
> all ICANN accredited registrars in accordance with the terms of the RAA. If
> the registrars refuse or are unable to adopt a Code of Conduct, then proceed
> to Option 3 below.
>
> Option 3:
>
> If ICANN is unable to implement the above referenced recommendations under
> either Option 1 or 2, ICANN General Counsel and Staff are instructed to
> enter into individual bi-lateral amendments to the RAA with registrars
> incorporating these procedures.
>
> For those registrars that execute the bi-lateral amendment to the RAA, ICANN
> will provide that domain name registrar and its registrants with an extend
> time window (30 days total) to investigate and respond to Whois data
> accuracy inquires. ICANN also agrees to not publicly disclose any
> statistical information on that registrar’s compliance with Internic,net
> Whois portal inquiries.
>
> For those registrars that refuse not to enter into a bi-lateral amendment to
> the RAA, ICANN will continue to enforce the shorter 15 notice and deletion
> policy instead of the more flexible 30 day notice and hold policy.
> Additionally, ICANN will publicly disclose statistical information on that
> registrars’ compliance with Internic.net Whois portal inquiries.
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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