RE: [registrars] .US Update

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

> very nature of the construct virtually prevents it from being effective to
any appreciable degree.

Ross, I don't necessarily agree with that statement.

Before the complaint form process, there was nothing in place to assist in
the enforcement of maintaining accurate whois data. The proposals that have
been put forth by the Whois TF after months of work are out of touch with
the day-to-day reality of doing business.

I'm not confident that any alternative solution will be quickly forthcoming.
I believe the complaint form process is at least a workable interim tool to
help with enforcement.

Issues involving how to get more accurate data up front are another matter
entirely. I don't think we should confuse the purpose of the complaint form
process, enforcement, with improving the processes to collect more accurate
up front.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:03 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org; Elana Broitman
Subject: Re: [registrars] .US Update


> 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
> >
>