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

[Ruchika Agrawal <agrawal@epic.org>]

Can someone from the registrar constituency tell us what are the 
registrars' views on implementation of privacy safeguards and enforcement 
of accuracy?

Thanks,
Ruchika

At 07:51 AM 2/21/2003 -0500, Ram Mohan wrote:
>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
> > >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >