ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[registrars] Votebot


Title: Message
Rick,
 
I think it would be best to set up a votebot to make sure that the integrity of the vote is not called into question. Although the default parameters for the votebot is 7 days it can be reduced. Please look into this ASAP.
 
Bryan I am going to need you to post a list of eligible voters and their emails based upon the most recent dues statement. Please make sure that those registrars that have mistakenly deposited the money into ICANN's account instead of the constituency account are properly accounted for.
 
Regarding the Task Force alternate recommendation discussing pricing, I believe that based upon my earlier e-mail about anti-trust concerns the Registrar Constituency should never vote on a proposal discussing/recommending/setting a price for a service. Therefore, I would strongly recommend that the registrars just vote on the first recommendation that never mentions price, and we abstain on the alternate recommendations.
 
If there are any objections please let me know, because time is of the essence.
 
Best regards,
 
Mike 
 
P.S. Regarding my previous post about how our Registrar Constituency Representative should vote. A third option which has been suggest to me is to keep the current default process, where Representatives vote what they feel is most representative and in the best interest of the constituency. Here are the argued pro and con in connection with this option.
 
The biggest "con" to this scenario is that you can have rouge Names Council representatives vote on matters that are inconsistent with constituency viewpoints. The argument to date has always been that rouge Name Council representatives can be voted out when they stand for re-election. One of the topics that has been discussed in connection with the ICANN Board is that an elected Director must act in the best interest of the corporation and not at the direction of his constituents that placed him/her there. As I said I do not know the answer as to how our names council representatives should vote in close contested issues.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:22 PM
To: 'Ken Stubbs'; ross@tucows.com
Cc: Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Public comment period on WHOIS TF final report untill 14 August

why dont we have a votebot so there is no consusion?
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:41 AM
To: ross@tucows.com
Cc: Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Public comment period on WHOIS TF final report untill 14 August

suggest you comment :
2.copies to the NC
3. copies also to the reps
 
ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Public comment period on WHOIS TF final report untill 14 August

Should we be directing comments to our NC reps or directly to the TF or?
 
 


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:13 AM
To: Registrars@dnso.org
Cc: Phillip Grabensee; Bruce Tonkin
Subject: [registrars] Public comment period on WHOIS TF final report untill 14 August

 

Registrar Constituency:

 FYI - Aug 14th is the deadline for public comments on the WHOIS Task Force's recommendations, prior to submission to the ICANN Board.
 
If anyone has specific comments questions on any of the recommendations below, best you get "on the record" ASAP...
 
Ken Stubbs
 
 
For your  reference, here are some  key recommendations for this document:

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.

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.

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.

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”).

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:26 AM
Subject: [nc-whois] Public comment period on WHOIS TF final report untill 14 August
>
> [ To:
ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ]
> [ To:
council@dnso.org; liaison7c@dnso.org]
> [ To:
nc-whois@dnso.org]
>
>
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/
>
>
> ICANN/DNSO
>
>    Call for comments on final report of WHOIS Task Force
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 17 July  2002
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2001calendardnso.html
> 2001/06/11 DNSO Names Council Whois Survey.
>
> On 26 June 2002, the WHOIS Task Force submitted its final report to
> the Names Council at the Bucharest meeting
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-WhoisTF-final.ppt
> The full report can be found at:
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/
>
>
> The Task Force Final Report is open for 4 weeks for public comments,
> starting today 17 July 2002, ending 14 August  2002.
>
> All comments should be sent to
>
comments-whois@dnso.org
>
> no later than 14 August 2002.
>
> The archives for comments on the Transfer TF Report on the WLS proposal
> are on line at:
>
>    *
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc00/
>
> The full archives of the WHOIS Task Force are on line at:
>
>    *
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>            Information from: © DNSO Secretariat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>