Re: [registrars] .US Update

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

> approximately 30 complaints a day. I thought you may find these data
points
> helpful.


Indeed, thanks - the intake of new complaints is substantially lower than
what I thought - but it doesn't really change the attendant analysis. I do
realize that this tool is an excellent centralized resource that is easy to
find for the average complainant, but it certainly isn't the panacea that
some interests have painted it as being.

I wonder what a reasonably accurate estimate on the number of dirty records
looks like....


                       -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>; <tim@godaddy.com>;
<registrars@dnso.org>; "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] .US Update


> Ross,
>
> Based upon my discussion with Dan Halloran today, with approximately 28
> million records in .com, .org, and .net to date ICANN has received 2,800
> complaints. After an initial influx ICANN is receiving on average
> approximately 30 complaints a day. I thought you may find these data
points
> helpful.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:26 PM
> To: tim@godaddy.com; Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org; Elana
> Broitman
> Subject: Re: [registrars] .US Update
>
>
> > Ross, I don't necessarily agree with that statement.
> <snip>
> > 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.
>
> Let me clarify a little bit further. I touched on this in our comments to
> the Whois Task Force as well.
>
> (Note: All numbers are for illustration purposes only)
>
> Constants:
> 15 million existing dotCOM registrations
> 5 million existing records with dirty data
> 40,000 new record additions per day
> 10,000 new record deletions per day
> 1,000 complaints filed per day
>
> If we assume that new data is just as dirty as old data, we are likely
> adding at least 10,000 net new dirty records to the database per day. We
are
> only catching 1,000 per day. Even if the number of records with dirty data
> is 10% of what I used above, the problem persists.
>
> At this rate, in four years, the problem will, at best, be at least
exactly
> the same size if we continue to employ the same solutions. I expect that
> this will hold true for dotUS as well.
>
> > 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.
>
> I propose that this is precisely where we focus our efforts. There is a
> fallacy that Registrars are responsible for the accuracy of the data in
the
> Whois database. Registrars are only obligated to solicit the cooperation
of
> Registrants when the data is deemed inaccurate - and invoke penalties for
> non-compliance. The responsibility for the accuracy of the data still
> remains with the Registrant however. Until and unless we start to look at
> how we can proactively incent Registrants to uphold their end of the
> bargain, the problem will continue to exist - and given the nature of the
> proposals that continue to come forward, our costs will continue to
> increase.
>
>
>                        -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: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
> To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Michael D. Palage"
> <michael@palage.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>; "Elana Broitman"
> <ebroitman@register.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:48 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] .US Update
>
>
> > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>