<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
Ross, I am all for making an even stiffer restiction on port-43,
like not having one at all except to do transfers (and then making it XML
based or
at least easily parse-able). IP and law enforcement can get the
information via our websites which is more easily protected from mining
by for example using gifs that many of us already use there.
It is difficult to do this via port 43
What I am supporting is *at least* this level of port-43 restriction.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:04 PM
To: 'Paul Stahura'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
> I second this motion
> Paul
If it were up to me, I would prefer to see our constituency seek
proposals from the membership regarding how port 43 could best be dealt
with. Tiered access/restricted access is one way that the problem can be
addressed. This may not be the best way to deal with the concerns that
have been raised. I would be hesitant to endorse a position that solely
considered this course of action as the proposal.
-rwr
"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright
Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:23 PM
> To: 'registrars@dnso.org'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
> I second this motion
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:47 PM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
> Mike - could you please also include the following additional
> ballot - this is meant to address the port 43/public Whois
> issue without affecting Brian's bulk whois ballot.
>
> Thanks, Elana
>
> The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN change the
> requirements to provide contact data via the public Whois
> database and the Port 43 Whois database, due, among other
> issues to the privacy concerns raised by European Union and
> European government authorities, consumer groups, and privacy
> advocates. The Constituency proposes that a Whois database
> with contact information continue to be available on a
> protected basis to specified legitimate interests, including,
> for example, intellectual property holders seeking to protect
> their intellectual property interests, law enforcement, and
> registrars and registries seeking to request and complete
> transfers and for other appropriate technical reasons.
> Therefore, the Constituency proposes that the GNSO Council's
> privacy task force include among its goals the amendment of
> the Whois data requirements per the above guidelines.
>
> > [] I support the statement as a formal position of the Registrar
> Constituency;
> > [] I do not support the statement as a formal position of the
> > Registrar
> Consituency;
> > [] Abstain.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:07 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for the feedback, but we will be voting using the
> software. The purpose of posting the ballots was to see if
> any one had any proposed rewording/amendments.
>
> The next round of TLDs will be exclusively sponsored,
> however, I believe that at least some that are likely to be
> proposed will be of a much larger registrant community that
> the original three. However, that being said, I believe that
> with some education, marketing and outreach some of the
> original sponsored TLDs could reach a much more larger market.
>
> I have some additional ideas in this area, but I am buried.
> However, I will share them with you and the group latter on.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:00 PM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
> >
> >
> > Ballot 1 - We would support.
> >
> > Ballot 2 - We would likely support.
> >
> > Ballot 3 - We would be interested in hearing from others on this
> > topic.
> >
> > How is what Stuart is proposing for this round of sTLDs any
> different
> > than the first round? And given the impact that aero, coop,
> and museum
> > has had on our business I'm not sure why we should even care.
> >
> > The comments added regarding gTLDs are good but leave a few
> questions
> > also.
> >
> > >(1) ICANN should, in parallel, move forward with the
> creation of an
> > >Accredited Registry Services Provider program which, having been
> > >based
> > on
> > >objective criteria, facilitates competition, innovation
> and continued
> > >growth within this nascent sector;
> >
> > I understand the purpose, but in practice, will this require gTLD
> > applicants to have a prior arrangement with an accredited
> provider? Or
> > only that if approved, they must either become or use an accredited
> > provider? I'm not sure I'm getting how this will facilitate
> > competition. It seems a little like the chicken or the egg issue.
> >
> > >- that delegants and operators be encouraged to leverage existing
> > registry
> > >protocols and not create new ones
> >
> > This seems to imply that the best protocols already exist. I agree
> > that life would be much easier if we had a single protocol to deal
> > with. On the other hand I would not want to stifle innovation and
> > potential future benefits to save a little time today. Besides, so
> > far, even with EPP, each implementation has been different. I don't
> > think we could support this ballot with this comment as part of it.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> > Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:33 AM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hello All:
> >
> > In Rio the following ballots were discussed in addition to the
> > currently proposed Bulk Whois Ballot. It was agreed that by posting
> > these ballots simultaneously in a batch we would hopefully maximize
> > voter turn out to a level similar to the last elections. Ballots #2
> > and #3 are being put out for
> > public comment for the first time although they were
> discussed in Rio.
> > If
> > there are any comments or friendly amendments please make
> them as soon
> > as
> > possible.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael D. Palage
> >
> >
> >
> > BALLOT #1 - BULK WHOIS BALLOT
> >
> > The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN eliminate the Bulk
> > WHOIS obligation since it: forces registrars to sell one of
> their most
> > valuable assets -- their entire customer list -- to competitors and
> > third parties; raises significant privacy concerns for both
> > registrants and registrars; and harms consumers by contributing to
> > unsolicited marketing campaigns.
> >
> > [] I support the statement as a formal position of the Registrar
> > Constituency; [] I do not support the statement as a
> formal position
> > of the Registrar Constituency;
> > [] Abstain.
> >
> >
> > BALLOT #2 - WIPO UDRP BALLOT
> >
> > The ICANN Registrar Constituency played an active role in
> the creation
> > and implementation of ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution
> Policy (UDRP)
> > back in
> > 1999. The UDRP in conjunction with national laws have provided a
> > reasonable
> > approach toward balancing the rights of domain name holders
> versus the
> > rights of third parties. However, the Registrar
> Constituency expresses
> > significant concern about the proposed expanse of the UDRP
> as set forth
> > in
> > the letter from the World Intellectual Property
> Organization (WIPO) to
> > ICANN
> > dated February 21, 2003.
> >
> > The ICANN Registrar constituency opposes any expanse of the UDRP to
> > include country names or the names and acronyms of International
> > Intergovernmental
> > Organizations (IGOs). Such an expanse of the UDRP was never
> contemplated
> > or
> > bargained for, and if approved would threaten the
> underlying viability
> > of
> > the UDRP itself.
> >
> > [] I support the statement as a formal position of the Registrar
> > Constituency; [] I do not support the statement as a
> formal position
> > of the Registrar Constituency;
> > [] Abstain.
> >
> >
> > BALLOT #3 - New TLDs
> >
> > The ICANN gTLD Registrar Constituency continues to support the
> > expansion of the namespace in a controlled and responsible
> manner. The
> > Constituency supports the criteria for expansion set forth
> in Stuart
> > Lynn's paper, released on March 25, 2003
> > (http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm), as
> a practical
> > step
> > forward in a discussion that has been historically beleaguered by
> > theoretical discussion of academic improbabilities. The Registrar
> > Constituency believes that the Board of Directors of ICANN
> should adopt
> > these final criteria, without delay and further that;
> >
> > (1) ICANN should, in parallel, move forward with the creation of an
> > Accredited Registry Services Provider program which, having
> been based
> > on objective criteria, facilitates competition, innovation and
> > continued growth
> > within this nascent sector;
> >
> > (2) ICANN's Board of Directors move to implement a scalable
> long-term
> > plan that institutionalizes the processes by which new generic
> > top-level domain
> > names are chartered and delegated and that such processes should
> > governed by
> > the following broad principles;
> >
> > - that the ongoing expansion continue take place in a
> controlled and
> > responsible manner,
> >
> > - that any criteria used to evaluate charter and delegation
> proposals
> > be objective and equitably applied to all proposals
> >
> > - that delegants and operators be encouraged to leverage existing
> > registry protocols and not create new ones
> >
> > - that delegants be encouraged to explore and implement new
> business
> > models
> >
> > - that businesses be allowed to fail, but that strong redelegation
> > practices be immediately implemented to ensure TLD
> > continuity
> >
> > - that registrar competition continue to be encouraged and remain a
> > cornerstone of this growing market and that all accredited
> registrars
> > continue to have equal and equitable access to registry
> operations and
> > services
> >
> > [] I support these statements as a formal position of the Registrar
> > Constituency;
> >
> > [] I do not support these statements as a formal position of the
> > Registrar Constituency;
> >
> > [] Abstain
> >
> >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|