RE: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO council by the non-commercial constituency

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

I stand corrected and thereby correct my motion.

The Names Council has already sent the following limited recommendations to the Board:

"I. Consensus Policies

1. Consensus Policies: Accuracy of WHOIS Data.

These two policies match the alternative wording proposed in the Implementation Committee's report, sections 1 and 2, which was accepted by the WHOIS Task Force. Further comments and additions are marked by underlining.

A. At least annually, a registrar must present to the Registrant the current WHOIS information, and remind the registrant that provision of false WHOIS information can be grounds for cancellation of their domain name registration. Registrants must review their WHOIS data, and make any corrections.

B. When registrations are deleted on the basis of submission of false contact data or non-response to registrar inquiries, the redemption grace period -- once implemented -- should be applied. However, the redeemed domain name should be placed in registrar hold status until the registrant has provided updated WHOIS information to the registrar-of-record.

The Task Force observes that the purpose of this policy is to make sure that the redemption process cannot be used as a tool to bypass registrar's contact correction process.

2. Consensus Policies: Bulk Access to WHOIS Data.

There are no substantial changes to to the policies contained in section 3.2 of the Policy Report. However, the extensive discussion presented in that report has been removed in this document. Additionally, some technical changes proposed by ICANN's General Counsel have been incorporated.

A. Use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing should not be permitted. The Task Force therefore recommends that the obligations contained in the relevant provisions of the RAA be modified to eliminate the use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing purposes. The obligation currently expressed in section 3.3.6.3 of the RAA could, for instance, be changed to read as follows (changed language underlined):

"Registrar's access agreement shall require the third party to agree not to use the data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing activities, regardless of the medium used. Such media include but are not limited to e-mail, telephone, facsimile, postal mail, SMS, and wireless alerts."

The bulk-access provision contained in 3.3.6.6 of the RAA would then become inapplicable.

B. Section 3.3.6.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement currently describes an optional clause of registrars' bulk access agreements, which disallows further resale or redistribution of bulk WHOIS data by data users. The use of this clause shall be made mandatory."

Based on re-reading this more limited set of accuracy-related recommendations, I'd amend the motion as follows:

 
"Recommend to the Registrar Constituency Representatives that they:

a) take no further action to make concensus policy recommendations regarding whois accuracy until such time as a task force has researched and made recommendations regarding privacy implications; and
c) take action, such as forming a task force, to research and make recommendations regarding the public and Port 43 Whois.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:24 AM
To: Elana Broitman; 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO
council by the non-commercial constituency


I would second the motion to support the report. And I would agree that
attempting to implement the Whois TF recommendations on accuracy without
addressing privacy is premature.

However, I would NOT want to see the recommendation on Bulk Access back
burnered. If anything, we should continue with the motion Brian set
forth to recommend that it be done away with altogether.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:50 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO
council by the non-commercial constituency

Bruce - thank you for sending these to the mailing list.  I believe that
Mike has already put this on the agenda, but would a discussion and
straw poll in Rio be sufficient to give you and the other reps guidance
on how to vote?

Clearly, privacy issues have been raised by a number of stake holders in
and outside ICANN.  This report is a very well thought out document and
I support their recommendations for a) addressing the security and
privacy problems posed by public Whois as it is currently constitued;
and b) holding off from  Council action until privacy issues have
received serious deliberation.

If it's appropriate to do so, I would move the Registrar Constituency
vote to support the NomCom report and recommend to its Council
representatives to vote accordingly.

Thanks, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:15 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO
council by the non-commercial constituency



Hello All,

See the attached report just released by the non-commercial constituency
to the GNSO Council.  I would like to hear registrar views on whether
the issues raised in the report our appropriate for policy action.

The GNSO Council will vote in Rio on whether to initiate policy action.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:52 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Privacy report



Dear Bruce:
As promised, attached is the report on Privacy prepared by the 
Noncommercial constituency representative. The report calls for
the creation of a new Task Force to consider privacy issues,
noting that the WHOIS Task Force has failed to submit an
adequate privacy issues report by the March 11 deadline.

Milton Mueller