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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com>]

Ruchika, 
there is an implementation report to the TF, which we incorporated. We need to be sure that we respect the work of the 
Implementation Committee on our report.  So, I am assuming you have something broader in mind? It would be helpful to be very clear: Are you seeking individual registrar views on other, broader issues of privacy?  
Or a registrar constituency contribution which is a consensus position from the constituency? Or are you recommending that the Task Force request such a position/briefing?  Depending on what you are recommending, a thought: If similar work is needed on the Issues Reports, the Council can be asked by the TF to launch such work efforts. 

Beyond that and not be held up by any other discussions,  of more time significant, you have a contribution pending to the TF.  AND it is an important component of the TF work.  [Just a suggestion:  you could also include that recommendation in your contribution to the Issues Report.]

On Tuesday, we could discuss as a TF, the feasibility of having another discussion with registrars and registries, or whether that needs to be undertaken after Council receives the Issues Reports. Both options can be considered by the TF, but time pressures need to be reflected in the TF's work. 

All TF members need to formulate any suggestions in a way which takes into account the full set of work initiatives the TF has yet to complete, given our limitations of time, before Rio.

Ruchika: For scheduling purposes, though, we will provide time for your report on Tuesday, after Patrik's discussion, which we are allowing 45 minutes for. 

Separately, I've also emailed Steve to ask for a similar report, following Ruchika's report. 

both are essential, given our timelines. 

Marilyn



 



-----Original Message-----
From: Ruchika Agrawal [mailto:agrawal@epic.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:19 PM
To: NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] Addendum to WHOIS TF Report in front of GNSO
Council


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
> > >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >