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

["Cute, Brian" <bcute@networksolutions.com>]

Jim,

You correctly note that I am new to the group having joined Network
Solutions in late February 2003.  Given that fact and the nature of your
earlier remarks, I would not engage in public comment on your post.  In the
short time that I have participated in the RC, I have attempted to
contribute constructively on issues that are of mutual interest to
registrars and, specifically, on WHOIS and privacy.  You can be your own
judge based on my contributions to the list and from any calls we may have
been on together.  

With regard to the nomination, the purpose of the Steering Group is to
generate a forward-looking work plan based on inputs from the Montreal Whois
workshops (which I will be attending) as well as inputs from the open WHOIS
calls that have taken place over the last few weeks (which I attended).
Although the Steering Group will not engage in policy making, its job is
important in this respect: the issues raised to date are multi-faceted and
do not lend to effortless resolution.  I believe the Steering Group can
provide an invaluable service to the RC and all interested parties by coming
up with a rational and logically constructed work program that will form the
basis of subsequent WHOIS policy development process.  I have put
significant thought to that particular issue and believe I can effectively
represent the RC's interest in achieving a workable solution sooner rather
than later.

Therefore, I accept the nomination made by Elana and seconded by Bruce and
thank them for their consideration.  I will post the required disclosure and
conflict statement shortly.  

Regards,
Brian   

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@registrationtek.com]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:15 PM
To: Elana Broitman
Cc: Registrars List
Subject: RE: [registrars] Representation on the GNSO WHOIS privacy
steering group (fwd)


Hi Elana and thanks...

--On Friday, June 13, 2003 9:53 AM -0400 Elana Broitman 
<ebroitman@register.com> wrote:

> Hi Jim -  I agree with your concerns about NSI's practices of renewal
> notices and their problematic transfer policies.

I'm gald to hear that.  Thanks.

> I didn't have those issues in mind in nominating Brian.  Instead, I was
> focusing on a second registrar which would be a strong privacy advocate
> and Brian certainly has been, as judged by his postings and his ballot
> proposal on bulk whois.  I thought he'd provide a 2nd advocate, to Tom,
> who would press registrars' points of view.
>
> I'd like your thoughts further, however - thanks, Elana

The committee and position for which you have nominated Brian is a critical 
one that provide Brian with an opportunity to make a major impact not just 
upon our industry, but also potentially upon other industries.  For 
example, companies that sell SSL certs have a big steak in what happens to 
whois since they depend upon it to verify domain name ownership (and 
remember, Verisign also sells certs).  The IP people have a very big steak 
in what happens to whois.  Registrars, of course, will see legal and 
technical changes, the burden of funding will fall upon us (as with almost 
all domain policy changes).

My concern is that Brian is very new to this group and so we don't really 
have much track record to examine.  However, his company does have a well 
established track record in this area and its not one that I feel merits 
being rewarded with this important position.

To be fair, let's give Brian a chance to chime in.  Brian, what is your 
opinion of Verisign's behavior in this regard?  Do you feel that the 
actions I reviewed (that Verisign took) were appropriate for Verisign, or 
any registrar, to take?  If not, can you tell us (as the head of NSI) what 
steps have been taken at Verisign to prevent this from happening again?  If 
you feel the actions were ok, please explain why they were ok.


Jim



*************************
James W. Archer
CEO
http://www.RegistrationTek.com