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

["Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>]

Jeff,

If the term "noise" bothers you, the solution is simple:

Send your comments to:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021015.NCWhoisTF-interim-report.html

Attacking people who do volunteer work (a lot of it, by the way),
would not appear to serve any useful purpose. If you have better
ideas, then submit them ! What more would we want as a task
force than to receive them ? As far as what, as co-chair, I "want to
hear or read about" thats simply hilarious ! Just try this for an
exercise: read the 3300 responses to the Whois survey and
see what you can come up with...

Tony Harris


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; "Antonio Harris
(E-mail)" <harris@cabase.org.ar>; "Don Evans" <DEvans@doc.gov>; "Nancy J.
Victory" <nvictory@ntia.doc.gov>; "cathy Handley" <chandley@ntia.doc.gov>;
"Robin Layton" <RLayton@ntia.doc.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations


> 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