<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] RE: Votebot
"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."
Mike - I'd like to propose an alternate approach (slightly modified).
The recommendations contain many nuances that need be considered.
Throwing out the alternate recommendations because of legal concerns
surrounding point II.F would be highly inappropriate.
My suggestion would be to use the votebot to allow members to vote on
all of the points I.A-C, II.A-E and cast an abstention on II.F by
default (no vote, no discussion as a matter of constituency "policy").
This would allow our NC reps to see exactly where the points of
agreement/disagreement are and vote/negotiate/discuss accordingly during
the call. It would also be wise to include a Votebot option on the
entire report as well (excluding II.F) in order to simplify the analysis
for our NC reps.
Also, as Paul mentioned, it would probably be prudent to use this same
vote run to deal with the Whois TF report as well and get it out of the
way.
-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: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:58 PM
To: Paul Stahura; 'Ken Stubbs'; ross@tucows.com
Cc: Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Votebot
Importance: High
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 :
1. to: comments-whois@dnso.org
2.copies to the NC
3. copies also to the reps
ken
----- Original Message -----
From: Ross Wm. Rader
To: 'Ken Stubbs' ; Registrars@dnso.org
Cc: 'Phillip Grabensee' ; 'Bruce Tonkin'
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>
To: <nc-whois@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: C DNSO Secretariat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|