<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Whois Task Force Interim Report
Hi mike,
I am fully supportive of all the points you have raised with rspetc to
concerns on the reccommendations of the whois task force. It pretty much
covers all aspects.
The important thing that the task force needs to understand is that NOT
CONTACTIBLE does not represent INACCURATE. And 15 days is too impossible
a timeframe for verificatin of genuine contact information. The
remaining points you have covered are quite exhaustive. Far more than
the points I had with me.
Consider Directi in favour of all the aspects you have raised
bhavin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:28 AM
> To: Rick Wesson
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Whois Task Force Interim Report
>
>
> Odd, it appeared for me. But just in case here is the text version.
>
> Comments on the Names Council's Whois Task Force Interim Report
>
> I. Executive Summary
>
> The Names Council Whois Task Force should be commended for
> the unenviable task of attempting to tackle the global and
> complex issues surrounding the access and accuracy of Whois
> data. However, the appearance that there is real consensus on
> these complex issues is misleading. For the reasons set forth
> below, most of the Whois Task Force's interim recommendations:
>
> . are inconsistent with ICANN's existing contractual obligations;
> . would violate ICANN's mission and core values as set
> forth in both the
> current and proposed by-laws;
> . conflict with existing technical and market realities;
> . would threaten the stability of the Internet and cause
> undue harm and
> damages to businesses and users; and
> . are not based on documented and reliable consensus.
>
> II. Positive Elements of the Whois Task Force Report
>
> Before detailing concerns with the report, it is important to
> acknowledge and affirm some the principles contained in the
> report that are an important part of any future comprehensive
> Whois solution:
>
> . Enforcing existing contractual provisions is an
> essential first step
> toward improving WHOIS data accuracy;
> . Uniformity of formats and elements is helpful, but
> relies upon standards
> developments; and
> . Whois discussion must take into account national law
> and local stakeholder
> perspectives, particularly when an ICANN contracting party is
> subject to the jurisdiction of these laws.
>
> III. Flaws in the Whois Task Force Report
>
> . The Task Force chose to "interpret their mandate
> broadly"; "there [were]
> several questions which [the Task Force did not] fully
> examine"; and the survey the Task Force conducted was not
> "statistically valid" - these admissions indicate the Task
> Force's liberal use of interpretation of data, which counters
> against the notion that a clear consensus was found.
>
> . The Whois Task Force's proposed regulatory solutions
> imposing substantial
> graduated fines ($250/$500/$1,000 per incident) and mandating
> business practices (filters) contradicts ICANN's role as a
> technical coordinating body.
>
> . Some of the Whois Task Force's recommendations
> explicitly rely on changes
> to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Per
> Louis Touton's note of October 20, 2002, ICANN lacks the
> contractual authority to unilaterally renegotiate this or
> other agreements.
>
> . In Interim recommendation 1.0, the Whois Task Force
> instructs ICANN to
> require registrars to use "automated mechanisms" (filters) to
> screen data. These recommendations are not supported by any
> data to demonstrate the technical nor commercial viability of
> these "automated mechanisms" on small, medium and large-scale
> registrars. In fact these recommendations would appear to
> contradict established case law that has held filters "place
> an unreasonable burden" on registrars. See Worldsport
> Networks Limited v. Artinternet S.A. and Cedric Loison.
>
> . The Whois Task Force reaffirmed the stated ICANN policy
> that the failure
> of a registrant to respond to an inquiry regarding the
> accuracy of the Whois data after fifteen days should result
> in immediate cancellation of the domain name.
>
> . Market realities may make it difficult for some domain
> name registrants to
> interact with certain registrars, and such rules if rigidly
> enforced would have dire and unintended consequences to
> honest domain name registrants. Although affirmative steps
> should be taken to remove domain name associated with
> potentially false Whois data from the zone files, canceling
> the domain name is a Draconian approach with potential grave
> consequences. The more prudent approach that the Whois Task
> Force should have considered is removing the domain from the
> zone file (same effect as a delete) but with a larger safety
> net to protect consumers and businesses.
>
> . The Whois Task Force recommends that any domain name
> cancelled on the
> basis of false contact data be subject to the Redemption
> Grace Period (RGP). Although the Task Force recommends that
> this rigid cancellation process be implemented in the "near
> term," the Whois Task Force appears to have overlooked the
> fact that no ICANN sanctioned TLD currently has an
> operational RGP in place.
>
> . The Whois Task Force makes several recommendation of
> the standardization
> of Whois data formats and outputs. Although this is an effort
> that merits further discussion, the Whois Task Force's
> recommendation appears to potential violate NeuLevel's
> registry contract that explicitly allows for the registry to
> introduce the ability for registrars to use XRP to add
> customized fields to a record in the registry, see Appendix O
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appo-11
> may01.htm
>
> . Although the Whois Task Force acknowledges that certain
> standard efforts
> involving Whois data such as the new Cross Registry
> Information Service Protocol (CRISP) may improve or replace
> existing port 43 access to Whois, the Task Force would impose
> policy recommendations upon standards development in
> contradiction of ICANN's technical coordinating mandate to
> have policy supercede the standards development upon which
> the Internet has been built.
>
> . Despite the concerns of the Registrar Constituency
> regarding Whois data
> mining, the Task Force failed to study this problem. In
> fact, addressing this problem would help registrars find the
> resources to address the other Whois issues of concern to the
> Task Force. This is particularly problematic in that there
> have been two litigations filed involving registrars on this
> very matter.
>
> Register.com v. Verio. This litigation was one of the driving
> forces in the creation of this Task Force, and it addresses
> the very important precedent of the no-third party
> beneficiary clause contained in the ICANN Registrar Registry
> Agreement. See
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm
>
> GoDaddy v. VeriSign. Although the parties in this litigation
> recently reached a settlement agreement, in GoDaddy's Fifth
> Claim for Relief it alleged that VeriSign improperly and
> illegally obtained a copy of GoDaddy's Customer Contact Data.
>
> . John Berryhill, Esq. has also raised a number of valid
> concerns regarding
> shortcomings of the Whois Task Force recommendations.
> Specifically, the Task Force has failed to define what
> constituents "inaccurate" data for the purposes of this
> policy although it has set forth in great detail the
> sanctions associated with "inaccurate" data. As Mr. Berryhill
> has recently inquired, does the use of role accounts in Whois
> data which is neither a person nor a legal entity constituent
> inaccurate information?
>
> . The Whois Task Force recommendations requiring "thick"
> registries to
> screen and filter data similarly lack any documented evidence
> to support the technical nor commercial viability of this
> solution. This proposed solution potentially interferes with
> the relationships between registrars and their customers - a
> step that ICANN had scrupulously avoided in negotiating
> registry agreements. Moreover, imposing this policy
> requirement on the thick registries would allow them under
> their contract to raise their fees to cover their expenses
> while also recognizing a reasonable profit. Because of the
> unforeseen costs associated with these proposed policy
> recommendation, registrars could have significant cost
> increases imposed upon them.
>
> . Some of the Task Force recommendations also ignore the
> contractual
> obligations between the registries and registrars. For
> example, un-sponsored registries are prohibited in most
> circumstances from contacting the domain name registrant.
> However, the Whois Task Force seeks to impose an obligation
> on thick registries to identify and delete domain names
> associated with inaccurate information. There also appears to
> be no contractual right in the current agreement for
> registries to collect the monetary sanctions proposed by the
> Task Force.
>
> . The Task Force has also failed to account for potential
> abuses of its
> recommendations. For example, the Whois Task Force recommends
> that all domain names associated with false and inaccurate
> Whois data be deleted. Under these Draconian rules, consider
> the following scenario. Company A falsely registers a domain
> name in the name of Company B seeking to tortuously interfere
> with Company B's business operations. Company A then reports
> this information through ICANN Internet.net web site. When
> the data is found to be false, under the proposed rules, all
> of Company B's domain names registered and used in good faith
> would be cancelled.
>
> . There were also several valid comments submitted to the
> Whois Task Force
> regarding the legal considerations involving the right to use
> the domain name, and how these right associate to the
> different Whois data elements. Although there is an
> established body of law holding that domain names are not
> property, this legal view may not be universally shared
> around the world. There should be detailed discussion
> regarding the legal implications under the EPP protocol
> regarding the distinction between the Whois data elements of
> Registrant Name and Registrant Organization. Given the rigid
> sanctions proposed by the Whois Task Force, it would be
> prudent to discuss the legal rights and obligations of
> individuals associated with different Whois contact handles.
>
> . Despite several comments from participants regarding
> privacy rights it
> appears that the Whois Task Force did not provide a very
> detailed analysis of the European Data Privacy Directive, or
> other national laws. Any potential ICANN policy that is
> implemented must take into account national law and local
> stakeholder perspectives, particularly when an ICANN
> contracting party is subject to the jurisdiction of these laws.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:35 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Whois Task Force Interim Report
>
>
>
>
> Mike the document in the archive is blank. could you repost
> your comments in text?
>
> thanks,
>
> -rick
>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> > Hello All:
> >
> > Last week I posted to the registrar constituency mailing
> list some of
> > my private concerns regarding the Whois Task Force interim
> report. In
> Shanghai
> > a number of registrars expressed concern over the interim report,
> > however, as of today not one registrar has posted any
> public comments
> > on record to the DNSO website
> >
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments>
-whois/Arc01/maillist.ht
> > ml.
> I
> > would encourage registrars to submit their comments via email to
> > comments-whois@dnso.org.
> >
> > During the weekly Executive Committee call it was discussed
> and agreed
> that
> > the registrar constituency would adopt the concerns voiced in my
> > original submission, unless there were any objections. A copy of my
> > original submission can be found online at
> >
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments>
-whois/Arc01/msg00012.ht
> > ml.
> > The final date for submission is Nov 8th.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|