Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1486
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 23 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1486

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:53:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Comments on the Whois Task Force

Michael and all assembly members,

  Will you also be including some INTERIM conclusions too?  >;)
What is the INTERIM time frame that you have set for these
INTERIM Recommendations?  >;)

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Hello All:
>
> Attached please find a document outlining some of my personal concerns
> regarding the Whois Task Force interim report. I hope to have some interim
> recommendations drafted by the time I arrive in China.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                                         Name: whois-task-force-comments1.doc
>    whois-task-force-comments1.doc       Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
>                                     Encoding: base64

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:14:55 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Michael Palage's Comments on the Whois Task Force

Jeff,

I will be posting my recommendations shortly after I arrive in China this
Thursday.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:54 AM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Michael Palage's Comments on the Whois Task Force

Michael and all assembly members,

  Will you also be including some INTERIM conclusions too?  >;)
What is the INTERIM time frame that you have set for these
INTERIM Recommendations?  >;)

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Hello All:
>
> Attached please find a document outlining some of my personal concerns
> regarding the Whois Task Force interim report. I hope to have some interim
> recommendations drafted by the time I arrive in China.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                                         Name:
whois-task-force-comments1.doc
>    whois-task-force-comments1.doc       Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
>                                     Encoding: base64

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:17:11 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois Task Force

Comments on the Names Council’s Whois Task Force Interim Report

I.	Executive Summary

The Names Council Whois Task Force should be commended for the unenviable
task of attempting to tackle the global and complex issues surrounding the
access and accuracy of Whois data. However, the appearance that there is
real consensus on these complex issues is misleading. For the reasons set
forth below, most of the Whois Task Force’s interim recommendations:

·	are inconsistent with ICANN’s existing contractual obligations;
·	would violate ICANN’s mission and core values as set forth in both the
current and proposed by-laws;
·	conflict with existing technical and market realities;
·	would threaten the stability of the Internet and cause undue harm and
damages to businesses and users; and
·	are not based on documented and reliable consensus.

II.	Positive Elements of the Whois Task Force Report

Before detailing concerns with the report, it is important to acknowledge
and affirm some the principles contained in the report that are an important
part of any future comprehensive Whois solution:

·	Enforcing existing contractual provisions is an essential first step
toward improving WHOIS data accuracy;
·	Uniformity of formats and elements is helpful, but relies upon standards
developments; and
·	Whois discussion must take into account national law and local stakeholder
perspectives, particularly when an ICANN contracting party is subject to the
jurisdiction of these laws.

III.	Flaws in the Whois Task Force Report

·	The Task Force chose to “interpret their mandate broadly”; “there [were]
several questions which [the Task Force did not] fully examine”; and the
survey the Task Force conducted was not “statistically valid” – these
admissions indicate the Task Force’s liberal use of interpretation of data,
which counters against the notion that a clear consensus was found.

·	The Whois Task Force’s proposed regulatory solutions imposing substantial
graduated fines ($250/$500/$1,000 per incident) and mandating business
practices (filters) contradicts ICANN’s role as a technical coordinating
body.

·	Some of the Whois Task Force’s recommendations explicitly rely on changes
to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Per Louis Touton’s
note of October 20, 2002, ICANN lacks the contractual authority to
unilaterally renegotiate this or other agreements.

·	In Interim recommendation 1.0, the Whois Task Force instructs ICANN to
require registrars to use “automated mechanisms” (filters) to screen data.
These recommendations are not supported by any data to demonstrate the
technical nor commercial viability of these “automated mechanisms” on small,
medium and large-scale registrars. In fact these recommendations would
appear to contradict established case law that has held filters “place an
unreasonable burden” on registrars. See Worldsport Networks Limited v.
Artinternet S.A. and Cedric Loison.

·	The Whois Task Force reaffirmed the stated ICANN policy that the failure
of a registrant to respond to an inquiry regarding the accuracy of the Whois
data after fifteen days should result in immediate cancellation of the
domain name.

·	Market realities may make it difficult for some domain name registrants to
interact with certain registrars, and such rules if rigidly enforced would
have dire and unintended consequences to honest domain name registrants.
Although affirmative steps should be taken to remove domain name associated
with potentially false Whois data from the zone files, canceling the domain
name is a Draconian approach with potential grave consequences. The more
prudent approach that the Whois Task Force should have considered is
removing the domain from the zone file (same effect as a delete) but with a
larger safety net to protect consumers and businesses.

·	The Whois Task Force recommends that any domain name cancelled on the
basis of false contact data be subject to the Redemption Grace Period (RGP).
Although the Task Force recommends that this rigid cancellation process be
implemented in the “near term,” the Whois Task Force appears to have
overlooked the fact that no ICANN sanctioned TLD currently has an
operational RGP in place.

·	The Whois Task Force makes several recommendation of the standardization
of Whois data formats and outputs. Although this is an effort that merits
further discussion, the Whois Task Force’s recommendation appears to
potential violate NeuLevel’s registry contract that explicitly allows for
the registry to introduce the ability for registrars to use XRP to add
customized fields to a record in the registry, see Appendix O
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appo-11may01.htm

·	Although the Whois Task Force acknowledges that certain standard efforts
involving Whois data such as the new Cross Registry Information Service
Protocol (CRISP) may improve or replace existing port 43 access to Whois,
the Task Force would impose policy recommendations upon standards
development in contradiction of ICANN’s technical coordinating mandate to
have policy supercede the standards development upon which the Internet has
been built.

·	Despite the concerns of the Registrar Constituency regarding Whois data
mining, the Task Force failed to study this problem.  In fact, addressing
this problem would help registrars find the resources to address the other
Whois issues of concern to the Task Force.  This is particularly problematic
in that there have been two litigations filed involving registrars on this
very matter.

Register.com v. Verio. This litigation was one of the driving forces in the
creation of this Task Force, and it addresses the very important precedent
of the no-third party beneficiary clause contained in the ICANN Registrar
Registry Agreement.  See
http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm

GoDaddy v. VeriSign. Although the parties in this litigation recently
reached a settlement agreement, in GoDaddy’s Fifth Claim for Relief it
alleged that VeriSign improperly and illegally obtained a copy of GoDaddy’s
Customer Contact Data.

·	John Berryhill, Esq. has also raised a number of valid concerns regarding
shortcomings of the Whois Task Force recommendations. Specifically, the Task
Force has failed to define what constituents “inaccurate” data for the
purposes of this policy although it has set forth in great detail the
sanctions associated with “inaccurate” data. As Mr. Berryhill has recently
inquired, does the use of role accounts in Whois data which is neither a
person nor a legal entity constituent inaccurate information?

·	The Whois Task Force recommendations requiring “thick” registries to
screen and filter data similarly lack any documented evidence to support the
technical nor commercial viability of this solution.  This proposed solution
potentially interferes with the relationships between registrars and their
customers – a step that ICANN had scrupulously avoided in negotiating
registry agreements. Moreover, imposing this policy requirement on the thick
registries would allow them under their contract to raise their fees to
cover their expenses while also recognizing a reasonable profit. Because of
the unforeseen costs associated with these proposed policy recommendation,
registrars could have significant cost increases imposed upon them.

·	Some of the Task Force recommendations also ignore the contractual
obligations between the registries and registrars. For example, un-sponsored
registries are prohibited in most circumstances from contacting the domain
name registrant. However, the Whois Task Force seeks to impose an obligation
on thick registries to identify and delete domain names associated with
inaccurate information. There also appears to be no contractual right in the
current agreement for registries to collect the monetary sanctions proposed
by the Task Force.

·	The Task Force has also failed to account for potential abuses of its
recommendations. For example, the Whois Task Force recommends that all
domain names associated with false and inaccurate Whois data be deleted.
Under these Draconian rules, consider the following scenario. Company A
falsely registers a domain name in the name of Company B seeking to
tortuously interfere with Company B’s business operations. Company A then
reports this information through ICANN Internet.net web site. When the data
is found to be false, under the proposed rules, all of Company B’s domain
names registered and used in good faith would be cancelled.

·	There were also several valid comments submitted to the Whois Task Force
regarding the legal considerations involving the right to use the domain
name, and how these right associate to the different Whois data elements.
Although there is an established body of law holding that domain names are
not property, this legal view may not be universally shared around the
world. There should be detailed discussion regarding the legal implications
under the EPP protocol regarding the distinction between the Whois data
elements of Registrant Name and Registrant Organization. Given the rigid
sanctions proposed by the Whois Task Force, it would be prudent to discuss
the legal rights and obligations of individuals associated with different
Whois contact handles.

·	Despite several comments from participants regarding privacy rights it
appears that the Whois Task Force did not provide a very detailed analysis
of the European Data Privacy Directive, or other national laws. Any
potential ICANN policy that is implemented must take into account national
law and local stakeholder perspectives, particularly when an ICANN
contracting party is subject to the jurisdiction of these laws.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois Task Force

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:

I am slowly digesting your comments, which are, as usual, interesting and
enlightening.

Right now I only want to deal with one point:

> ·	Some of the Whois Task Force's recommendations explicitly rely on changes
> to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Per Louis Touton's
> note of October 20, 2002, ICANN lacks the contractual authority to
> unilaterally renegotiate this or other agreements.

Let's not forget the value of comity.

ICANN had no way of forcing Verisign/NSI into the major amendment of their
contract with ICANN, but with the carrot that ICANN offered, the perpetual
control of .com, Verisign was happy to be induced.

What I'm saying is that perhaps there is no unilateral power, but there is 
value in future comfortable relations.

At the risk of violating ICANN's policy of having comments in the form of
messages tossed over a wall and disappearing from view, please pardon me
if I take this opportunity to post my own comment on the report:

>From [email-masked] Tue Oct 22 22:58:10 2002
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Comment on Oct. 14 Interim report

I see nothing in this interim report that answers the primary question why 
personally identifiable information must be published to the public at 
all.

In other words, the report fails to answer what I believe must be the 
first question: Why is "whois" needed, and by whom?

It is my sense that there is little public value in the existance of a 
publicly available "whois" database.

There are, of course, small groups who find such a database useful and
perhaps even valuable - groups such as marketeers (spammers) and trademark
people who seek to redress perceived violations of their rights without
resorting to the processes that nations have established for that purpose 
(i.e. the legal system.)

However, the report fails to indicate that the needs of those groups is of
sufficient weight to justify what amounts to a wholesale violation of
privacy principles that amounts to nothing less than an anti-privacy tax
on anyone who wishes to become visible on the internet through the
mechanism of acquiring a domain name.

The report fails to consider privacy protection mechanisms such as the 
following:

  - Requirements that the data subjects (i.e. the people named in whois 
    records) have free and effective means to maintain the data.

  - Requirements that those who examine the records must first identify 
    themselves, offer proof of that identity, and indicate working means 
    of contact, in particular a valid e-mail address.

     + To ensure that the contact of the person making the inquiry is 
       valid, the response to the query should be returned by e-mail 
       rather than being made online.

    + Special arrangements might be established for those in operational 
      roles (such as people in ISP network operating centers) to have 
      pre-arranged access credentials.

  - That the time, date, and identity of every inquiry be recorded and 
    made available to the data subjects.

  - Requirements that the registries and registrars make no use of the 
    information for any purpose except that for which it was gathered, the 
    maintainence of the registrant's domain name (including the issuance 
    of billing and status statements.)

  - Requirements that registries and registrars take concrete steps ensure
    that this data is protected by adequate and appropriate security 
    measures.

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:04:34 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FWD: Some comments on WHOIS (third world perspective)

Here are some additional comments that I received that I would like to share
and which I believe supports a more flexible approach to inaccurate whois.

Although I remain committed to solving the Whois problems, I believe only a
comprehensive solution addressing the various issues/concerns will work. I
regret to say that a piecemeal solution is likely to fail.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: Srikanth Narra [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Some comments on WHOIS (third world perspective)

Briefly, from third world perspective here is what I
have to say, from personal experience.

India / Africa / Philippines :-

Quite often the domain name is registered by a friend
living in US on behalf of and in the name of someone
living in these countries.

The email address is not accessed often. Maybe once in
a while. The sites if they exist are brochureware'ish.
The phone number might very well be neighbours not own. (Not to mention
language issues - person picking the phone might now speck English or
comprehend the topic at hand)
The only reliable thing might be the postal address.
The mail takes (easily) over a month in some cases to reach from
US.

Given this circumstance, cancelling domain name or putting it on hold
because someone did not answer a phone or email in 15 days is pretty much
unrealistic from their perspective.

The best confirmation of a domainname is the fact that
someone is actually paying for it. The reliable
mechanism to check WHOIS information might be at the
time of renewal. And the method of communication snail
mail.

These people will be at extreme disadvantage.

China / MiddleEast :-

Accurate WHOIS information in case of sites might be at
physical / social risk to the registrant.

Bottomline -

What is the exact benefit the domain name owners get
from all the accurate WHOIS information ?

*** (New additions I did not have on earlier email).
Reseller perspective -

Reselling domain name registrations is a very risky venture given all the
legal and trademark hassles. Lot of registrars seem to be getting into it
(especially to be able to target foreign markets) as the local reseller has
more feel and proximity to the market.

With shifting sand situation it places the resellers at much greater risk
and turbulence.

***
Foreign exchange regulations - Not all countries have freely convertible
currency. This forces (friend paying overseas, local reseller vs. US based
register usage,etc) some innovative methods to get on net.. (for background
perspective).

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 02:32:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois Task Force

Karl, Michael and all assembly members,

  I too have thus far found much of what Michael addressed in his
comments
on the Whios Task force interesting.  I know that our members are
going over his comments as I respond here.

  I like you Karl will likely address Michaels comments in segments
also.

  Your comments to the Whois Task Force Karl were for the most part
I felt spot on with one exception.  I did not agree, and still don't,
that
only a few stakeholders/users are interested in a public Whois Database.

  My central issue with the Whois Task Force is two fold.  First being
that the whole Task force process is poor and has done little
to address the issues that have been voluminously discussed
here in the DNSO GA.  Second, related to the first, is that
the central and most important issue with Whios is that of
the private and personal information that it seems ICANN
through it's IPC and BC constituencies wish to be required
to be listed is offensive, dangerous as to identity theft and
stalking, not to mention unnecessarily irritating regarding
Spam.  Hence it seems that the process lead to a glossing
over this central and most important issue mainly because the
BC and the IPC do not wish to be thwarted in this area
and therefore force down the throats of the stakeholders/users
a very tiny minority view and make it into policy.

  Therefore I believe that this Whois Task Force was poorly
lead, and as such conducted itself irresponsibly.  Hence
my own conclusion is that any of it's report conclusions
are thus at the very least questionable...

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> I am slowly digesting your comments, which are, as usual, interesting and
> enlightening.
>
> Right now I only want to deal with one point:
>
> > ·     Some of the Whois Task Force's recommendations explicitly rely on changes
> > to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Per Louis Touton's
> > note of October 20, 2002, ICANN lacks the contractual authority to
> > unilaterally renegotiate this or other agreements.
>
> Let's not forget the value of comity.
>
> ICANN had no way of forcing Verisign/NSI into the major amendment of their
> contract with ICANN, but with the carrot that ICANN offered, the perpetual
> control of .com, Verisign was happy to be induced.
>
> What I'm saying is that perhaps there is no unilateral power, but there is
> value in future comfortable relations.
>
> At the risk of violating ICANN's policy of having comments in the form of
> messages tossed over a wall and disappearing from view, please pardon me
> if I take this opportunity to post my own comment on the report:
>
> >From [email-masked] Tue Oct 22 22:58:10 2002
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Comment on Oct. 14 Interim report
>
> I see nothing in this interim report that answers the primary question why
> personally identifiable information must be published to the public at
> all.
>
> In other words, the report fails to answer what I believe must be the
> first question: Why is "whois" needed, and by whom?
>
> It is my sense that there is little public value in the existance of a
> publicly available "whois" database.
>
> There are, of course, small groups who find such a database useful and
> perhaps even valuable - groups such as marketeers (spammers) and trademark
> people who seek to redress perceived violations of their rights without
> resorting to the processes that nations have established for that purpose
> (i.e. the legal system.)
>
> However, the report fails to indicate that the needs of those groups is of
> sufficient weight to justify what amounts to a wholesale violation of
> privacy principles that amounts to nothing less than an anti-privacy tax
> on anyone who wishes to become visible on the internet through the
> mechanism of acquiring a domain name.
>
> The report fails to consider privacy protection mechanisms such as the
> following:
>
>   - Requirements that the data subjects (i.e. the people named in whois
>     records) have free and effective means to maintain the data.
>
>   - Requirements that those who examine the records must first identify
>     themselves, offer proof of that identity, and indicate working means
>     of contact, in particular a valid e-mail address.
>
>      + To ensure that the contact of the person making the inquiry is
>        valid, the response to the query should be returned by e-mail
>        rather than being made online.
>
>     + Special arrangements might be established for those in operational
>       roles (such as people in ISP network operating centers) to have
>       pre-arranged access credentials.
>
>   - That the time, date, and identity of every inquiry be recorded and
>     made available to the data subjects.
>
>   - Requirements that the registries and registrars make no use of the
>     information for any purpose except that for which it was gathered, the
>     maintainence of the registrant's domain name (including the issuance
>     of billing and status statements.)
>
>   - Requirements that registries and registrars take concrete steps ensure
>     that this data is protected by adequate and appropriate security
>     measures.
>
>                 --karl--
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:30:51 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ccNSO-AG update

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/ccnsoag-report-22oct02.htm

The ccNSO Assistance Group has produced an update which contains
an interesting framework separating three dimensions of the 
ICANN--ccTLD relations:

- -- functions (data entry function and name server function),
- -- roles (policy definition, operation/implementation, holding
   responsible entity accountable)
- -- levels (from the root to the second level)

They have also "an example to show the use the framework to describe 
the current state of affairs" based on a paper by Bart Boswinkel
and Jaap Akkerhuis from the .nl registry.

E.g. for the user's nameserver, the ccTLD manager and RFCs set
policies, the registrant operates it, the ccTLD manager is to
hold the registrant accountable.

I'm not sure in all cases about the accountability column in the
framework, but this approach at untangling seems a step in the
right direction. And of course, explicitly thinking about who is 
held accountable by whom is absolutely necessary.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 05:04:48 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Developing Nations/Whois

Each unique internet community of users has unique needs and concerns.
Privacy is entirely different in India then it is in Mexico. The examples are
too obvious and many.

However there are some universal truths that we may hold self evident.  The
higher the level of privacy the better for the individual.  The lower the level
of privacy the better for big business. Now if you are hungry do you want
privacy or a job?
As to expiry and developing nations, I know of no place where if you do not
continue to pay for a service you still receive it, oh it may be a communal
payment or a subsidy but you pay.  Furthermore in most developing countries for
most services you get no written bill, much less friendly reminders.

Users and individuals in developing countries are entitled to two things when it
comes to the Internet, dignity of the individual and a chance at using it.
Within these two rules you have Accessibility, reliability and Security.
Keep in mind also that the violations of privacy are quite generally directly
proportionate to your electronic/telecommunications access. It is very difficult
to interrupt a family dinner with a phone solicitation if the family has no
phone.

e

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Here are some additional comments that I received that I would like to share
> and which I believe supports a more flexible approach to inaccurate whois.
>
> Although I remain committed to solving the Whois problems, I believe only a
> comprehensive solution addressing the various issues/concerns will work. I
> regret to say that a piecemeal solution is likely to fail.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srikanth Narra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Some comments on WHOIS (third world perspective)
>
> Briefly, from third world perspective here is what I
> have to say, from personal experience.
>
> India / Africa / Philippines :-
>
> Quite often the domain name is registered by a friend
> living in US on behalf of and in the name of someone
> living in these countries.
>
> The email address is not accessed often. Maybe once in
> a while. The sites if they exist are brochureware'ish.
> The phone number might very well be neighbours not own. (Not to mention
> language issues - person picking the phone might now speck English or
> comprehend the topic at hand)
> The only reliable thing might be the postal address.
> The mail takes (easily) over a month in some cases to reach from
> US.
>
> Given this circumstance, cancelling domain name or putting it on hold
> because someone did not answer a phone or email in 15 days is pretty much
> unrealistic from their perspective.
>
> The best confirmation of a domainname is the fact that
> someone is actually paying for it. The reliable
> mechanism to check WHOIS information might be at the
> time of renewal. And the method of communication snail
> mail.
>
> These people will be at extreme disadvantage.
>
> China / MiddleEast :-
>
> Accurate WHOIS information in case of sites might be at
> physical / social risk to the registrant.
>
> Bottomline -
>
> What is the exact benefit the domain name owners get
> from all the accurate WHOIS information ?
>
> *** (New additions I did not have on earlier email).
> Reseller perspective -
>
> Reselling domain name registrations is a very risky venture given all the
> legal and trademark hassles. Lot of registrars seem to be getting into it
> (especially to be able to target foreign markets) as the local reseller has
> more feel and proximity to the market.
>
> With shifting sand situation it places the resellers at much greater risk
> and turbulence.
>
> ***
> Foreign exchange regulations - Not all countries have freely convertible
> currency. This forces (friend paying overseas, local reseller vs. US based
> register usage,etc) some innovative methods to get on net.. (for background
> perspective).
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 05:36:47 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois TaskForce

I did not repost Karl's comments, but it is clear that I agree with them.

However, sometimes we must subsidize a service in order to make it affordable.

Clearly data bases of millions of people are more valuable to a Registry than are the
domain name registration payments.  Just look at the figures.
I do not like it one bit, but it is reality.  By ignoring or hating this fact we miss
the most essential element and that is; that this should not be a freebie to a huge
corporation, they should pay back to the users for this transgression.  Just look at
the spam type stuff generated off the GA list, I had to repaint my delete button ;-)
Well it is happening but the members of the GA make nothing from it, because we
pretend it is not happening even though it is.  This is like not taxing illegal drugs
because they are illegal - nonsense.

So even if we somehow make the Whois data completely private those having it will use
it and we should have a piece of that cash cow.

Sincerely,
eric

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:36:49 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois Task  Force

Well said Karl. I strongly believe that until we deal with the issue of
privacy, any solution to the perceived problems with Whois will just mask
the real problems and will be very ineffective because users will find ways
to protect their privacy in ways avoid new regulations.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:10 AM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Text Posting of Michael Palage's Comments on Whois
Task Force

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:

I am slowly digesting your comments, which are, as usual, interesting and
enlightening.

Right now I only want to deal with one point:

> ·	Some of the Whois Task Force's recommendations explicitly rely on
changes
> to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Per Louis Touton's
> note of October 20, 2002, ICANN lacks the contractual authority to
> unilaterally renegotiate this or other agreements.

Let's not forget the value of comity.

ICANN had no way of forcing Verisign/NSI into the major amendment of their
contract with ICANN, but with the carrot that ICANN offered, the perpetual
control of .com, Verisign was happy to be induced.

What I'm saying is that perhaps there is no unilateral power, but there is 
value in future comfortable relations.

At the risk of violating ICANN's policy of having comments in the form of
messages tossed over a wall and disappearing from view, please pardon me
if I take this opportunity to post my own comment on the report:

>From [email-masked] Tue Oct 22 22:58:10 2002
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Comment on Oct. 14 Interim report

I see nothing in this interim report that answers the primary question why 
personally identifiable information must be published to the public at 
all.

In other words, the report fails to answer what I believe must be the 
first question: Why is "whois" needed, and by whom?

It is my sense that there is little public value in the existance of a 
publicly available "whois" database.

There are, of course, small groups who find such a database useful and
perhaps even valuable - groups such as marketeers (spammers) and trademark
people who seek to redress perceived violations of their rights without
resorting to the processes that nations have established for that purpose 
(i.e. the legal system.)

However, the report fails to indicate that the needs of those groups is of
sufficient weight to justify what amounts to a wholesale violation of
privacy principles that amounts to nothing less than an anti-privacy tax
on anyone who wishes to become visible on the internet through the
mechanism of acquiring a domain name.

The report fails to consider privacy protection mechanisms such as the 
following:

  - Requirements that the data subjects (i.e. the people named in whois 
    records) have free and effective means to maintain the data.

  - Requirements that those who examine the records must first identify 
    themselves, offer proof of that identity, and indicate working means 
    of contact, in particular a valid e-mail address.

     + To ensure that the contact of the person making the inquiry is 
       valid, the response to the query should be returned by e-mail 
       rather than being made online.

    + Special arrangements might be established for those in operational 
      roles (such as people in ISP network operating centers) to have 
      pre-arranged access credentials.

  - That the time, date, and identity of every inquiry be recorded and 
    made available to the data subjects.

  - Requirements that the registries and registrars make no use of the 
    information for any purpose except that for which it was gathered, the 
    maintainence of the registrant's domain name (including the issuance 
    of billing and status statements.)

  - Requirements that registries and registrars take concrete steps ensure
    that this data is protected by adequate and appropriate security 
    measures.

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:54:02 +1300
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New or Changed Policies (from: [email-masked])

Dear Louis
Please would you ensure, when preparing statements like this to clearly
distinguish between cctlds and gtlds.

I assume that you never intended any of this to apply to cctlds - your focus
has been on gtld contracts.

But the risk remains that this sort of statement will be interpreted either
accidentally or maliciously as applicable to cctld registries and their
registrars.

A few glances at your text should make it clear:

1. cctld registries do not operate under a contractual right to operate
their registries, nor do they do so for an agreed period, and ICANN cannot
terminate the "designation" of a cctld registry operator.
2. ccTLD registrars are subject only to the contractual or other obligations
with their cctld registries, and have no legal relationship with ICANN at
all.

Thanks in anticipation.

regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New
or Changed Policies (from: [email-masked])

> fyi
> --
> Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Louis Touton <[email-masked]> -----
>
> From: Louis Touton <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:09:25 -0700
> Subject: [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New or
Changed Policies
> Envelope-to: [email-masked]
> Delivery-date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:11:56 +0200
>
> To the Names Council:
>
> Recently the Names Council Transfers and Whois Task Forces have posted
> interim reports that raise for consideration new or revised policies
> that depend on registrars and registry operators for implementation.
> Several of registrars and registry operators have expressed alarm
> concerning the effect that implementing these proposed policies would
> have on their operations, and have indicated that they presently oppose
> some of the requirements being considered.
>
> This opposition presents legal issues that could affect the ability to
> implement the policies being considered.  To assist the Names Council,
> its task forces, and the DNSO generally, I have prepared a briefing on
> legal considerations that should be taken into account in developing
> policies that are amenable to effective implementation.  I have posted
> that briefing at
> <http://www.icann.org/legal/briefing-on-implementation-20oct02.htm>.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Touton
>
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1486
*************************