Re: [registrars] .US Update

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

> My personal opinion is that it is never too early to start tackling
> fraudulent data in a responsible manner. Failing to tackle the problem
only
> allows non-responsible parties to game the system to the detriment of the
> industry.
>

Agreed - but there is no conclusive information that demonstrates that an
"Internic-complaint like" process will satisfy those objectives. To the
contrary, I suspect that the very nature of the construct virtually prevents
it from being effective to any appreciable degree.

> I believe that by being proactive, registrars could work with NeuStar and
> the rest of the .US stakeholders to develop mechanisms that work for all
> parties involved.

I couldn't agree more, but my primary concern with this recommendation is
that it falls into the same trap that the Whois task force does - it
increases the cost of transactions without any guarantee of achieving the
stated goals. When my costs go up, I'd prefer to have some line-of-sight to
the benefits.

My preference would be to explore alternate arrangements before we settle on
this sub-optimal solution. Neustar has a great opportunity to progressively
set itself ahead of the pack with policies of this nature. I'd hate to see
arrangements of convenience mute this.

                       -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>; <ross@tucows.com>; "Elana Broitman"
<ebroitman@register.com>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] .US Update


> There are approximately 400,000 registrations in the .US TLD according to
my
> records.
>
> My personal opinion is that it is never too early to start tackling
> fraudulent data in a responsible manner. Failing to tackle the problem
only
> allows non-responsible parties to game the system to the detriment of the
> industry.
>
> I believe that by being proactive, registrars could work with NeuStar and
> the rest of the .US stakeholders to develop mechanisms that work for all
> parties involved.
>
> Again, these are my personal opinions as a legal and policy representative
> to the .US Policy Council.
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:02 PM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] .US Update
>
>
> 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
> >
>