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

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

Antonio and all assembly members,

  I see from your comments here that you have not been paying
very good attention.  I am of course not all that surprised that
you have not been.  Again as I have informed Marlin on this
forum, I have already sent in separate comments, ideas, and
suggestions in a post TO the Whois Task Force "Black Hole"
E-Mail address as you indicate below...

  So, Antonio, in the future perhaps you should start reading
some of those 3300 survey comments and deploy a good
archive search facility so as to be able to find specific
submittals via key word or E-Mail address criterion.
It would seem to me that a TF of such importance and
self claimed "Authoritative" knowledge would have such
a search facility/script or Archive database that is easily searchable
readily available!  >;)

Antonio Harris wrote:

> 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
> >
> >

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