RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda

["Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>]

Michael,

Would you also consider some time for a discussion, and if warranted, a
brief Registrar Constituency statement development session, regarding the
WhoIs Task Force Interim Report
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021015.NCWhoisTF-interim-report.html)?

Though assuredly well intentioned, we believe that the WhoIs Task Force is
mis-guided in their suggestions on how to implement data accuracy processes
in what is essentially a highly automated, low-cost, competitive, and
necessary service that we provide customers.  If any of the TF's recommended
processes were put in place by the registrar community, prices of domain
registrations would sky-rocket, which would put gTLD domains out of the
reach of most consumers.  Remember, we already have very stringent
requirements in the ICANN contracts on how to address reported data
inaccuracies.

If you simply look at the summary of the changes recommended in this interim
report (see Appendix 2 of the General Counsel's Briefing Concerning
Implementation of Policies by Registrars and Registry Operators at
http://www.icann.org/legal/briefing-on-implementation-20oct02.htm), you will
note how expensive and onerous these processes would be to implement:

Appendix 2 - Summary of New or Revised Obligations Discussed in the Whois
Task Force Report

- Registrars would be required to use "automated mechanisms to screen out
obviously incorrect contact data (e.g., ZIP code/postcode matching software
[at least for North American registrants], rejecting incomplete fields in
contact data, etc.)" (Whois Task Force Interim Recommendation 1.0 A.4.a). 
- Registrars would be obligated to obtain documentary proof of the accuracy
of "corrected" contact data supplied by registrants in response to inquiries
concerning accuracy (Whois Recommendation 1.0 A.4.c). 
- Registrars would be obligated "to treat a complaint about false WHOIS data
as to one registration as a complaint about false WHOIS data as to all
registrations that contain identical contact data, and all such
registrations should be made the subject of an inquiry, corrected, or
cancelled, as the case may be, en bloc." (Whois Recommendation 1.0 A.4.d). 
- Registrars would be obligated to verify the accuracy of registrant contact
data prior to "restoring" a name via the Redemption Grace Period that was
deleted the basis of false contact data (Whois Recommendation 1.0 A.4.e). 
- Registrars (and "thick" registries?) would be required to pay fines of
US$250, US $500 and US $1000, and be subject to temporary suspension of
rights to register new names, for successive failures to correct reported
inaccuracies in their Whois data (Whois Recommendation 1.0 B). 
- Registrars would be obligated to require registrants to "review and
validate all Whois data upon renewal of a registration" (Whois
Recommendation 1.0 C.1). 
- Registrars would be obligated to "spot-check a sample of registrations in
order to validate the accuracy of contact information submitted" (Whois
Recommendation 1.0 C.2). 
- Registrars would be obligated, "to the greatest extent feasible," to
employ "semi-automated methods such as e-mail pinging, automated dialing to
validate telephone numbers" in order to verify the accuracy of contact data
submitted by registrants (Whois Recommendation 1.0 C.3). 
- Registrars (and registries?) would be obligated to use a common Whois data
output format and return in response to all queries, across all gTLDs (Whois
Recommendation 2.0 C). 
- Registrars would be obligated to make their Whois data available for
searches across TLDs by domain name, registrant name, admin and technical
contact name or handle, and primary and secondary nameservers or IP
addresses (Whois Recommendation 3.0 B.1). 
- Registrars would be obligated to provide bulk access to Whois data only to
(accredited?) "parties who are able to articulate a legitimate"
(non-marketing?) need for access to the data (Whois Recommendation 4.0 A). 
- Instead of being able to charge "an annual fee, not to exceed US$10,000,"
registrars would only be able to charge for "actual costs of providing" bulk
access to Whois data (Whois Recommendation 4.0 B). 
- Registrars would be obligated (it is optional under the current RAA) to
require third parties to agree to not sell or re-distribute the bulk Whois
data except as part of a value-added product or service (Whois
Recommendation 4.0 E). 
- Registrars would be obligated (it is optional under the current RAA) to
enable registrants to simply and transparently opt-out (or opt-in?) of
having their data available for bulk access for marketing purposes (Whois
Recommendation 4.0 F). 

With the Whois Task Force interim report recommendations of this
significance, I strongly urge you and the RC ExCom to devote time on our
upcoming agenda to spend time on this issue, and to develop a Registrar
Constituency formal response.

Regards,

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:29 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda


Hello All:

I should have the agenda for Shanghai's meeting finalized by Monday after
the next Registrar Constituency Executive Call. Current topics on the
agenda: ICANN reform; update on transfers and Whois Task Forces; initiation
of deletes task force; .org transition; and whois update (CRISP/Universal
Whois). An additional topic that I believe is worth wild to add in new TLDs.
Bret Fausett has recently published an article on principle' concerning the
new TLD process, see http://www.lextext.com/newTLDdiscussionpaper.html. I
believe that it is a document that many should read as I believe it is worth
the constituency backing it. If there are any other topic anyone would like
added to the agenda, please let me know.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage