Re: [registrars] .US Update

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Michael,

Thanks for the note and the pointer.

David,

Would you like to arrange for a conference call outside of the DNSO to
discuss registrar interest on this matter? Tucows would be please to sponsor
the cost of the call.

My basic concern is that while the Internic reporting mechanism is a
reasonable bandage for the ICANN policy problem as it relates to Whois, the
general policy has an effect of increasing the burden of responsibility for
accuracy for Registrars and lessening that of Registrants. While it safely
deals with the concerns of the Registry operator, I'm not sure that it is
the most equitable approach for the Registrar sector. Ideally, a
teleconference would allow us to explore arrangements that could stand as an
effective alternative to Michael's proposition.

If there is an interest from your side and other dotUS registrars, please
let me know and I will make the necessary arrangements.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] .US Update


> Yes basically I was advocating the use of a whois reporting mechanism the
> same as currently used by ICANN at the InterNIC site. Our next .US Policy
> call is next week and I will try to have a motion to submit although I am
> currently busy working on the kids.us component.
>
> Just to set the record straight, I am not the registrar representative on
> the .US Policy Council. That honor would fall on David Washer. My position
> is as a legal expert.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:14 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] .US Update
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Can you provide the constituency with more details concerning this item
from
> the minutes?
>
> "Mr. Palage advocates adoption within .us of the WHOIS data accuracy
gateway
> policy and process adopted by ICANN.  Place the burden of data accuracy
> appropriately on registrars and registrants.  He noted that FCC and DoC
have
> reacted positively to policy.
>
>
> Mr. Hudis asked that Mr. Palage provide written proposal given complexity
of
> item.  Mr. Palage noted that the motion basically would be that NeuStar
> adopt and implement in a manner similar to ICANN.
>
>
>
> Ms. Tennant noted concern regarding the ability of individuals to speak
> anonymously on the Internet and what impact the WHOIS policies have on
this
> right.  Mr. Palage noted that Go Daddy, an Internet registrar, offers a
> WHOIS proxy product to address such concerns.  Mr. Casey noted that the
> service was legal under the .US Registrar contract.
>
>
>
> Mr. Palage and Mr. Wascher agreed to draft a policy proposal and submit it
> to the counsel.  Mr. Hudis asked for the document by the end of October."
>
>
>
> While this is a ccTLD issue and outside of the scope of formal policy
action
> of the DNSO and this constituency, details such as these have significant
> operational impact on the membership and advance notice of the proposal
that
> the council is considering would be useful to set the frame of reference
for
> many of the members. This is especially significant given the documented
> policy flaws of the ICANN policy model regarding Whois.
>
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:57 AM
> Subject: [registrars] .US Update
>
>
> > NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO NEXUS DISPUTE POLICY AND RULES
> > Notice of Proposed Changes. On October 8, 2002, the .US Policy Council
> voted
> > to post the following proposed changes to the .US Nexus Dispute Policy
and
> > Rules enabling a Complainant to recover a domain name if that domain
name
> is
> > registered by a person or entity that fails to meet the usTLD Nexus
> > Requirements and such failure to meet the requirements is not cured
within
> > thirty (30) days.
> >
> > Public Comment Invited. Public comment is invited on the proposed
changes
> to
> > the Nexus Dispute Policy and Rules below. Comments should be sent by
> e-mail
> > to
> > US-List-Admin@Neustar.biz no later than November 20, 2002.
> >
> > See http://www.neustar.us/policies/nexus_changes.html to link to the
> > Proposed Changes
> >
>