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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Danny, thanks for posting this to the GA. 

I regret that I was unable to attend this meeting due to the lateness of
it's publication to the broadly interested community.  There was
regretfully, an important meeting which I was previously scheduled to
participate in which prevented my attending other than merely stopping by. I
had hoped to be able to spend at least a half hour there, but just wasn't
able to.  

I think we all both applaud Verisign for doing outreach, and remember that
this was an important part of the agreements during the last contract
negotiations. 

Of greater consequence and concern about the last meeting,  largely, the
technical community was not available and I think that is a serious loss.
Also, the broad ISP and business user community was not able to participate.


I understand from my outreach to Verisign that they intend to do other
meetings; I think it essential that this outreach be done in a way in which
the broad technical community's perspectives are a part of the very early
stages of the dialogue. I realize this presents challenges to Verisign to
organize and publicize. 

Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask for a meeting in Montevideo to take
preliminary input from the constituencies; realizing that the
representatives will still have to take consultation with their
constituencies after Montevideo. However, if Verisign came prepared with a
presentation, perhaps that could be a useful approach to ensure broader
input and awareness.

Regards, Marilyn

-----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@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