Re: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Rob Hall wrote:
> 
> 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,

There is more to it than wanting to hide
a customer list. We get complaints on a regular
basis about the public display of phone, email and 
address information. I wouldn't want my home
information made public. It is even a problem just to
have an email address made public. We have email
accounts here that receive 500 pieces of spam
a day as a result of being public.

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com




> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------