[nc-whois] Comments from Chuck Gomes, VGRS

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>]

Comments from Chuck Gomes, VGRS are listed below.

 

-Ram

----- Original Message -----

From: Gomes, Chuck

To: GTLD-PLANNING@nic.museum

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:46 PM

Subject: Re: [GTLD-RC] Fw: [nc-whois] Public comment period on WHOIS TF fi nal report untill 14 August

Please note my comments below.

 

Chuck

1.   Accuracy of the data contained in the WHOIS database

The Task Force believes that the approach of actually enforcing the existing contractual provisions is the essential first step toward improving  WHOIS data accuracy in the gTLD environment.

The Task Force believes that a method of graduated sanctions or enforcements against parties who breach the requirement to provide accurate information and to maintain an accurate Whois database,  potentially as a combination of policy and financial penalties, should be considered, in order to facilitate the actual enforcement of the current policy with respect to WHOIS data accuracy.

 

If enforcement of current contractual provisions  does not lead to an improvement of WHOIS data accuracy, then more substantial changes to the RAA itself or the establishment of consensus policies (as necessary) should be considered.

[Gomes, Chuck] Enforcing the requirement to have a Whois service and that it follow an agreed to format is one thing.  Enforcing accuracy of data is quite another.  I personally do not think it is realistic.  Note that it really does not impact us as a thin registry, but it could have huge cost implications on registrars and probably thick registries.

 

2.   Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs

The Task Force believes that the questions of uniform data formats and uniformity of data elements need to be discussed and handled separately.

The present Task Force believes that the use of such a uniform data format across gTLD and ccTLD environments should be evaluated.

The Task Force believes that WHOIS data elements should be uniform across all gTLDs.

[Gomes, Chuck] How about encourage voluntary compliance for ccTLDs? 

The Task Force believes that this topic should be the subject of separate deliberations.  These deliberations should take into account specific aspects of  the TLD environments, as well as the value of  accountability and transparency across the domain name system.    Public interest concerns should be taken into account in an appropriate manner. The  objective should be to identify the best way to make progress toward the goal of the uniformity that all  users of the system clearly desire.

3.    Better searchability

To facilitate the restoration of full searchability of Whois databases [see (1) and (2) above], ICANN should explore both enforcing the  mandate to  registrars and registries to provide (or to cooperate in the provision of) such complete  WHOIS search service, and a market-based approach based on bulk access to WHOIS data.

[Gomes, Chuck] This again raises serious feasability and cost implications for registrars and thick registries. 

With respect to the more advanced services described in (3) above, the Task Force does not recommend any policy changes. The Task Force suggests that ICANN explore how best to swiftly develop and  implement a plan for cross-registry Whois services, including through  third party services, based on bulk access to WHOIS data.

4.     Better protection of data subjects from marketing use of the data contained in the WHOIS database

Based on these results, the Task Force recommends a review of the current bulk access provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.  In particular, the following possible changes  should be examined more closely:

·         The policy could attempt to ensure that protection mechanisms can't be circumvented by third parties selling indirect access to bulk data.  This could, for instance, be accomplished by changing "may require" in section 3.3.6.5 to "shall require."  It could also be accomplished by requiring bulk access  users to impose conditions on the use of their products and services which are similar to the ones in ICANN's policy.

·         Sections 3.3.6.3 (prohibition of use of bulk access data for marketing purposes) and 3.3.6.6 (opt-out provision) could be simplified,  unified, and extended to include contact data of organizational entities. Marketing use of registrants' data outside existing business relationships could depend on the registrant's prior agreement ("opt-in").

[Gomes, Chuck] Current bulk data access requirements are nearly impossible to enforce.