RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>]

Then I will be forced to vote against this, simply because I believe whois
should be available to the public (in a form that prevents mining).

I wish you would reconsider my amendment, but I understand why the third
largest registrar would wish to hide it's client list.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:38 PM
To: Rob Hall; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots


Thanks Rob - my company has seen tremendous abuse of public Whois, so some
sensible limit or segregation of the data for accepted and public users is
important to privacy and security of our customers.  I understand that it
there are many issues and details to figuring out how to do this, which is
why my ballot suggests sending the issues to the task force, rather than
taking a more prescriptive approach as suggested by Ross.  You could
participate in the TF and help figure out the right balance to strike.

So, I don't accept that amendment, unfortunately, but hope you understand
why I'd like to keep both the public and port 43 access as issues for the
privacy task force.

Thanks, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:32 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots


Elana,

I am not comfortable with the wording of the ballot.

I understand the problems with port 43 whois, and I support the issue in
relation to port 43.

I do not, however, have the same feelings about all whois data.  It is
fairly trivial to rate limit access through our websites.  Whois data should
be freely available via a web interface.  It is the port 43 stuff that is
the problem.

I agree with Paul on this one.

So I propose an amendment to your motion.

I suggest you remove the words "the public whois database and" to reword the
sentence to

"The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN change the requirements to
provide contact data via the Port 43 Whois database, ..."

Thanks.

Rob.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of 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
>
>
>