RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>]

So, why don't we just all join the business constituency.  We all qualify.

Then, we would know exactly what was happening, and could have input.

In fact, I bet most of us could also join the ISP constituency.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 6:34 PM
To: Tom D'Alleva
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda



If it were me, I'd be checking the credentials of the business
constituency to make sure they are representing the business of the
internet world which i suspect care little of these things, its is the
folks running the TF and their egos that are creating the issue here.

before they go pointing their fingers at us I'd like to see them open
their process and mailing lists so that we can ensure these recommendations
were not the idea of the TF chair and are truly coming from the
[business] constituency members.

this might be an unpopular view, but I suspect the TF has been mismanaged
and now reports more of a few individuals view rather than that of any
constituency.

best,

-rick


On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Tom D'Alleva wrote:

> I also agree with Bruce, Tim, Paul, etc.. The whois issue is a serious
> problem that impacts all registrars.
>
> What gets me is that when the Department of Motor Vehicles issues a
driver's
> license with incorect information do they ever get fined? or are they
> responsible for when someone changes adress without notifying them?  Why
> would the model be different for registrars?
>
> In keeping with the DMV model, it might be better to impose the fine on
the
> registrant and allow registrars to keep a portion of the fine as an
> administrative processing fee to off-set the hugh enforcement and
> maintenance costs.
>
> your thoughts?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:32 PM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
> >
> >
> > I agree with Tim (and Bruce) on this one.
> > Tim hit the nail on the head with:
> > "...have the appearance of a solution, but are really little more than
> > superficial"
> > I agree that maybe more representation from registrars can really help
> > with the task of coming up with a real working solution to this complex
> > problem.
> >
> > For example, issues such as the cost of implementation (and for
> > most of the
> > tasks
> > it will be expensive) must be weighed against the cost of gaming (really
> > cheap).
> > For example, each of us registrars could implement an automated
call-back
> > system
> > to "verify" phone numbers (expensive), but then the dishonest registrant
> > could just use a public-phone telephone number to defeat it (cheap).
> > In Europe, I believe you can get a disposable phone number with a
> > disposable
> > phone at your corner store.
> > We'd have good info from honest people, and lousy info from the
dishonest
> > ones.
> > Add it would be at a high cost to even get that.
> > As someone said at the FTC meeting (it may have even been the FTC who
said
> > it):
> > "we'd just end up with a better educated class of fraudsters"
> > Then of course, the honest people who put in good info
> > would be getting calls from telemarketers like crazy
> > because they'd know (whois is publicly available) all the phone
> > numbers were
> >
> > valid and they'd know that the person just purchased a domain name.
> > So even the honest people will end up gaming it.
> >
> > With an illusion of a solution that will effect us all,
> > I think at least we are more motivated now to work on this tough problem
> > and come up with real working solutions.  It wont be easy.
> >
> > I am looking forward to our discussions of this and the other issues
next
> > week.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 1:05 PM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
> >
> >
> > I agree with Bruce on the development of a statement. The
> > proposed processes
> > to improve accuracy may have the appearance of a solution, but are
really
> > little more than superficial.
> >
> > Also, given that any policy that may result from this TF's work
> > will affect
> > registrars almost exclusively (implementation), I believe we
> > should push for
> > additional representation on this TF.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Beckwith, Bruce
> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 1:53 PM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>