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

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

Jeff - 

Thanks for your input.  We are in the process of setting up the web forum.
Once that's done we will send the URL to the list.  

Regards, Miriam

Miriam Sapiro
Director of International Policy

VeriSign, Inc.
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington DC 20006
tel:    202-973-6600
fax:   202-466-9103
cell:  703-282-7117
email: msapiro@verisign.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:20 AM
To: Sapiro, Miriam
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS
servi ces


Miriam and all assembly members,

  I will not try to characterize Danny's comments one way or the other.
I think they should just stand as is.

  However I am happy to see that Verisign is taking a more concerted
interest
in WHOIS related issues, the most important of which is privacy of
registrants
with their Domain Names.  What concerns me with Versigns approach that
you very nicely outline below, is that it seems to be a attempt to divide
the interested parties into groups that may or may not be representative
of the interest parties or Domain Name holders/owners.  As such, this
proposed process you outline seems to be open to divisiveness and
manipulation that is not necessary or could be counter productive.
I would also like to ask is there a URL where the forum you mention
by which interested parties may submit papers or comments?
Please advise.

Sapiro, Miriam wrote:

> 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@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 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

--
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