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

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

Michael and all assembly members,

  Michael, you again bring up yet another good point of concern
that has and continues to plague and discredit the "ICANN Process".

  As you likely know, I amongst a number other GA participants
have long worried and been frankly quite aware that the "TF method"
of determining policy is a poor one for a number of reasons of which
you again have brought up one.

  As you also likely also know anything I as spokesman for INEGroup
have put forward to the Whois, and Transfer Task Force has by
Marilyn been, as she herself has stated only considered "Noise"
in her opinion, which is questionable at best.  Hence any public input
through these skewed Task Force Methods or processes is
only what the members or chair's of those task forces WANT to
hear or read about, nothing else.  Hence no good or reasonable
policy can be derived adequately.

  So unless as you indicate in your comments and observations below,
Michael, a transparent and open discussion and debate for specific
issues such as Whois can be entertained or "Allowed" we as
stakeholders/users will continue to see inadequate or inappropriate
policy for these issues to continue.  For the life of me, I cannot
understand such utter nonsensical approaches of dealing with
issues to policy.

  I guess this is why just last friday AT&T announced a 5 for 1 Reverse
stock split, Worldcom is in deeper trouble than first even imagined,
and ICANN seeks to choose its BoD members now by and election
committee.

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Dear Marilyn:
>
> After three years I think we have moved beyond the formality of addressing
> each other on a last name basis :-)
>
> As you can see from my email header below, I did submit these comments on
> the "record" to the Whois Task Force on Friday, November 1st. The fact that
> they were not received raises the question of what other submissions may
> have also been lost in the mail.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:18 PM
> To: comments-whois@dnso.org
> Subject: Michael Palage's Proposed Recommendations
>
> Attached please find my proposed recommendations for the Whois Task Force
> based upon my earlier comments to the Task Force,
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:08 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage; ga@dnso.org
> Cc: Antonio Harris (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force
> Recommendations
>
> Dear Mr. Palage,
>
> May we have your permission to post this particular email to the WHOIS TF?
>
> Also, as you are aware there is an open comment site. We urge you, IF you
> are interested in having your comments included in the TF documentation, to
> post to that site. It can be found at dnso.org, or icann.org, click on
> announcements.  While we post to the WHOIS TR site, WHEN requested, we make
> it pretty clear that individuals should take responsibility for their own
> postings, to open sites.  We urge you to follow the procedures to ensure
> that your comments are included and available to others.  The TF is
> committed to reading the open comments site.  We have and will continue to
> advise that we cannot guarantee reading of other lists. We know that you
> understand the need to ensure a centralized posting site.
>
> We also wish to thank you for attending the public meeting with the
> Registrars/Registries, Sunday in Shanghai. As committed in that meeting, the
> TF is working toward follow up with the registrars, especially, shortly.
>
> We hope that you will join that call, as well.
>
> Your thoughtful insights should be part of the "record". We hope you will
> chose to submit your comments [below]  through the formal comment process.
> And, we look forward to your further participation.
> Best Regards, Marilyn Cade                      Antonio Harris=
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:25 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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@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