RE: [registrars] .US Update

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

how many new .us registrations are there?  is it worth having a reporting
mechanism at this point, or should we give the ICANN process some time to
test the system?

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:27 AM
To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
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
>