Re: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda

["Joyce Lin" <joyce@007names.com>]

All,

> - 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],

No credit card processing company can stop a transaction from going through
when the ZIP/POSTCODE do not match - we just pay higher rates when they
don't.  Can somebody tell us one processing company that can reject the
transaction?

Are they penalizing honest North American registrants?  I think they're
encouraging all North Americans move somewhere in the world other than North
America at least on paper or claiming it as secondary residency.

Joyce Lin
007Names, Inc.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda


> 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
>