RE: [registrars] Representation on the GNSO WHOIS privacy steeringgroup (fwd)

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Hi Elana...

I have to say, after giving myself some time this evening to consider this 
nomination, I remain confused about your reasoning.  Here is why.

To review, Verisign, for whom Brian works, not too long ago began sending 
what many people described as deceptive renewal notices to all of our 
customers.  Our customers, and even our employees, received these.

This is important: The only way the customer information could have been 
extracted from us is by using our port 43 whois.

If I recall correctly, one registrar and member of this group, Bulk 
Register, went to court and got an order stopping Verisign from doing this. 
What did Verisign do?  They stopped sending the notices to the customers of 
Bulk Register but continued to send them to customers of other registrars. 
Another member of this group, GoDaddy, had to go to court to get another 
court order to finally stop Verisign from sending these.

While all this was happening, many registrars were forced to post warnings 
about these letters on their web sites.  There was quite an outcry among 
this group about the practice.  Verisign, to the best of my knowledge, 
never admitted or conceded any wrongdoing.

In light of all this, you cite Brian's "active interest and work to date on 
Whois privacy matters" and nominate him for this position, saying he would 
be "a good advocate for registrar interests."

Given the history I just reviewed, I wonder if you, as a candidate for the 
Chair of this group, do you feel these actions are acceptable behavior? 
Why or why not?  Further, which registrar's interests do you feel Brian 
would be a good advocate for?  Why?

Jim


--On Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:15 PM -0400 Elana Broitman 
<ebroitman@register.com> wrote:

> As Bruce's note below specifies one or two registrar representatives, I'd
> like to nominate an additional representative to the excellent choice
> presented by Tom Keller.  Given Brian Cute's active interest and work to
> date on Whois privacy matters, I believe he would be a good advocate for
> registrar interests on this task force.
>
> Regards, Elana
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wessorh@ar.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:27 AM
> To: Registrars List
> Subject: [registrars] Representation on the GNSO WHOIS privacy steering
> group (fwd)
>
>
>
> Just a reminder that the nomination period for this position will close on
> the 13th at 8pm ET
>
> best,
>
> -rick
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
> To: Registrars List <Registrars@dnso.org>
> Subject: [registrars] Representation on the GNSO WHOIS privacy steering
>     group (fwd)
>
>
> Registrars:
>
> Per Mr. Tonkin's note below I open the nomination period for the
> constituency to select a primary and alternate representative for the
> GNSO WHOIS privacy steering group.
>
> Nominations are open for 7 days ending at 8pm ET on the 13th and the
> ballot will open for 7 days closing at 8pm June 20th ET. Due to time
> constraints we will forgo the 2 day period between nomination and
> balloting.
>
> Nominations for constituency representation work in the same way as
> the current nominations. Nominations require a second, an acceptance and
> conflict of interest statement -- all are required before the close of
> the ballot.
>
> -rick
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:00:28 +1000
> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Representation on the GNSO WHOIS privacy steering
>     group
>
> Hello All,
>
> The GNSO Council has requested that each constituency nominate one or
> two representatives to the GNSO WHOIS privacy steering group.  Note this
> steering group is not responsible for policy development.  Its role is
> to take the large number of issues of the ICANN Staff Managers report on
> Privacy and develop terms of reference for one or more task forces to
> carry out policy development.  These terms of reference will need to be
> approved by the GNSO Council before policy development can take place.
>
> The preference is to appoint the representatives prior to the Montreal
> meeting.
>
> Given that the representatives will not be "elected officers" under the
> new registrar by-laws, I assume we can have a fast track process for
> appointment.  Remember that the steering group does not itself develop
> or approve policy.
>
> I recommend a 7 day nomination period and a 7 day voting period.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Registrars Rep on the GNSO Council
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Friday, 6 June 2003 5:29 PM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Subject: [council] WHOIS Privacy steering group
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> Just a reminder that all constituencies should appoint one or two
> members to the WHOIS privacy steering group prior to the Montreal
> meeting.  It is probably preferable if those members will be attending
> the Montreal meeting to gain the most benefit from the public forum, and
> the opportunity for the steering group to meet in-person at Montreal.
>
> Please inform the GNSO Secretariat of the appointments so that a mailing
> list can be set up.
>
> The ALAC and the GAC may appoint one or two (non-voting) liaisons to the
> Steering Group.  The ccNSO would also be welcome to nominate an informal
> liaison also.
>
> The objective of the steering group is to:
> - examine the Staff Manager's report on WHOIS Privacy
> - review the factual presentations of the ICANN public forum on WHOIS in
> Montreal
> - develop recommendations, for the GNSO Council to approve, to form a
> small number (e.g less than 5) of Task Forces to carry out the policy
> development process on the major issues identified in the Staff
> manager's report (it should be possible to group some of the related
> issues for examination within a single task force)
> - the recommendations should incorporate for each task force a terms of
> reference in accordance with the ICANN bylaws (Annex A, Section 7(b)):
>
> " Such Charter will include:
>
> 1. the issue to be addressed by the task force, as such issue was
> articulated for the vote before the Council that commenced the PDP;
>
> 2. the specific timeline that the task force must adhere to, as set
> forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a compelling
> reason to extend the timeline; and
>
> 3. any specific instructions from the Council for the task force,
> including whether or not the task force should solicit the advice of
> outside advisors on the issue."
>
> - if the steering group recommends more than two task forces be created
> it should recommend to the GNSO Council an order in which the task force
> work should be done, and an approximate timeframe for when each task
> force will commence and finish
>
> Council members and Steering Group members might like to review the IETF
> standard RFC2418 on IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt).  The standard documents best
> practice within the IETF in forming working groups and defining
> charters. Section 2.1 (criteria for forming a working group) and Section
> 2.2
> (Charter) are particularly relevant.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> GNSO Council Chair
>
>
>
>