Re: [nc-whois] Addendum to WHOIS TF Report in front of GNSO Council

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

Steve,
To be clear, registries at this point will not implement accuracy without
understanding the privacy implications (legal, social, etc).  Registries
agree on the need for better accuracy of Whois records.

The Consensus Policy on Accuracy (A) does not impact registries in a new
manner.  Consensus Policy on Accuracy (B) does affect registries and
requires them to take specific action upon request by their authorized
registrars.

Steve, your statement is probably better aimed at Registrars than
Registries -- as the person in charge of the largest "thick" domain name
registry (.INFO, and soon, .ORG), I am keenly aware of the problems caused
by poor accuracy of Whois records.  I am also highly sensitized to the
privacy statues that govern some of our largest customers (registrars) and
end-users (businesses, non-commercial organizations, and individuals).

For the record, it must be noted that the gTLD Registries endorsed the
report at the GNSO Council with the unequivocal understanding that the
implementation of accuracy must be linked to that of privacy, and that
consensus policies may have to be changed as a result of privacy issues.

It seems to me that we are all vehemently in agreement on these topics -
unless I am mistaken about what you're saying.

Regards,
Ram

-snip-
Consensus Policy on Accuracy

A. At least annually, a registrar must present to the Registrant the current
WHOIS information, and remind the registrant that provision of false WHOIS
information can be grounds for cancellation of their domain name
registration. Registrants must review their WHOIS data, and make any
corrections.

B. When registrations are deleted on the basis of submission of false
contact data or non-response to registrar inquiries, the redemption grace
period -- once implemented -- should be applied. However, the redeemed
domain name should be placed in registrar hold status until the registrant
has provided updated WHOIS information to the registrar-of-record.

The Task Force observes that the purpose of this policy is to make sure that
the redemption process cannot be used as a tool to bypass registrar's
contact correction process.
-snip-

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@iipa.com>
To: <k@widgital.com>; "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>
Cc: "NC-WHOIS (E-mail)" <nc-whois@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:08 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Addendum to WHOIS TF Report in front of GNSO Council


> I disagree.  I think it was made abundantly clear in the GNSO Council
> meeting this morning that the extremely small changes to consensus
policies
> included in the ""Final"" Report are not linked to privacy and there is no
> reason to delay their implementation pending the outcome of a Policy
> Development Process.   The 21-3 vote in the Council to approve the Report
> reflects this position.  The only dissenters were the Non-Commercial
> Constituency whose representatives candidly stated that they did not think
> registrants should be required to submit accurate contact data.  I respect
> their point of view but it is a dramatic shift from the requirements that
> have been in place for several years now.  The conclusions of our "Final"
> Report changes those requirements only minimally, as I believe the
registrar
> and registry representatives recognized on the Council.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: k@widgital.com [mailto:k@widgital.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:45 PM
> To: Ram Mohan
> Cc: NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [nc-whois] Addendum to WHOIS TF Report in front of GNSO
> Council
>
>
> Ram,
>
> This seems quite reasonable to me.  I appreciate the way the gTLD
> Constituency went about this (and the ALAC as well).  I don't believe
> anyone on the TF intends for Accuracy to be enforced until Privacy is
> managed.  This recommendation appears in-line with my understanding of our
> TF's progress intentions.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kristy McKee
>
>
> At 09:42 AM 2/20/2003 -0500, Ram Mohan wrote:
> >Dear Whois Task Force:
> >My constituency met yesterday to discuss the Whois Task Force reports on
> >Accuracy and Bulk Whois Access, prior to the vote on approving these
> >reports in the GNSO Council.
> >
> >The gTLD Constituency endorses these reports, with the following
addendum,
> >which it requests be added to the report prior to consideration by the
> >GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
> >
> >"At the time of implementation, Privacy and Accuracy must be linked
> >together and not addressed independently.  Furthermore, Privacy issues
may
> >require modifications to existing Consensus Policy."
> >
> >The gTLD registries are concerned that once Consensus Policy is endorsed,
> >particulalry in the area of Accuracy, any such policy cannot (and should
> >not) be implemented without providing due consideration to Privacy.
> >
> >Since this statement has to do with implementation of our TF's suggested
> >policies, I view it as a benign change.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ram
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >Ram Mohan
> >Vice President, Business Operations
> >Chief Technology Officer
> >Afilias (<http://www.afilias.info>http://www.afilias.info)
> >p: 215-706-5700 x103; f: 215-706-5701
> >e: <mailto:rmohan@afilias.info>rmohan@afilias.info
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>