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

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Elana,

The approach below is better.

There has been some confusion over the WHOIS task force report that has been submitted to the ICANN Board.

It contains:
- 4 consensus recommendations, as you listed below
- a set of guidelines for improving WHOIS accuracy that were partly obtained from the WHOIS implementation committee report

The guidelines are not binding consensus policy.  It would certainly be appropriate for registrars and registries to recommend to ICANN staff that they take into account the privacy issue when attempting to enforce the existing contractual obligations with regard to accuracy.  Note that registrars already have a large degree of discretion in regard to action they take in regards to inaccurate information.  Registrars may decide to delete a name or decide to place a name on hold until the accuracy issue is resolved.  Registrars do have an obligation to contact the registrant when the registrar becomes aware that the information is inaccurate.

I think there is strong agreement that no further action on accuracy should be undertaken until the privacy issues surrounding WHOIS are explored further.

My recommendation would be that the registrars support a resolution to initiate a task force on privacy issues associated with WHOIS.  This would be a new task force.  Registrars can then form a constituency position on possible solutions to the privacy issues taking into account input from the WHOIS task force and the non-commercial constituency.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:08 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; Bruce Tonkin; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO
> council by the non-commercial constituency
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>