Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1496
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 5 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1496

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:52:04 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ** who are the root server operators?

Hello,

- --- Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 9) Egypt (or another in Africa, like Israel)
> Last time I checked geography map, Israel was in Asia.
> But Egypt is indeed in Africa.

hehe Before I sound like a dunce (I actually won geography awards in
high school, eeek!), Israel isn't in Africa, for those who emailed me,
you're right. 

I had meant "or another country to *serve* Africa". I highlighted
Israel as it's a transit-point between Africa and the middle-East/Asia,
so is in a good spot geographically.

If someone has a good map of current and projected internet traffic
flows, that would help for the placement of optimally arranged
root-servers (I remember Worldcom/UUNet used to have a good one,
although not clear if there is one for all the big backbone operators,
combined into a single map).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.GlobalDomination.com/ <<-- in my new world order, there will
be fewer continents! ;)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
- --
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: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 18:51:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Allan Liska wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: MD5
>
> Hello Joe,
>
> Monday, November 4, 2002, 12:32:06 PM, you wrote:
>
> JB> Well I find it objectionable that there's so much secrecy around the root
> JB> server operators.  I see so many groups fighting over the accuracy of
> JB> whois data while i can't for the life of me find a contact email, phone,
> JB> fax or point of contact for any root server operators.
>
> As Paul has already pointed out on nanog, the list of root server
> operators is located at:
>
> http://root-servers.org/

Thats just a list of root servers - it provides no contact information.
Nor is any in the whois.

The only contact information available is in the SOA whois gives the
contact email address for the root operator as [email-masked].

regards
joe baptista

- --
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: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:07:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Allan Liska <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > As Paul has already pointed out on nanog, the list of root server
> > operators is located at:
> >
> > http://root-servers.org/
>
> Perusing the list, 10 of the 13 root servers are in the US, leaving
> only 3 outside the US (1 in Japan, 1 in UK and 1 in Sweden).
>
> Are there any plans to expand the list of root-servers, maybe to 26
> from 13, for greater internet stability?

they can't.  the limit is 13 mainly due to protocol limitations.

what they can do is establish multiple root server confederations - but
they can't do that either because Stuart Lynn laid an egg called "A
Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS" - which see

http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm

regards
joe baptista

- --
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:25:10 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

George and all assembly members,

  This is exactly what we [INEGroup] suggested be done some 3+
years ago.  New or additional Root servers to the present USG/Legacy
Root servers are needed and also desired.  However our list at that
time also included a potential Root Server in the African continent
such as perhaps in South Africa.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Allan Liska <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > As Paul has already pointed out on nanog, the list of root server
> > operators is located at:
> >
> > http://root-servers.org/
>
> Perusing the list, 10 of the 13 root servers are in the US, leaving
> only 3 outside the US (1 in Japan, 1 in UK and 1 in Sweden).
>
> Are there any plans to expand the list of root-servers, maybe to 26
> from 13, for greater internet stability?
>
> Offhand, looking at a map of the world, I would think the following
> countries would be candidates for at least 1 root server:
>
> 1) Canada (or move 1 from the US here)
> 2) China
> 3) South Korea
> 4) France (or Italy)
> 5) Germany (or Switzerland, or move the Swedish one here)
> 6) India
> 7) Australia
> 8) Brazil (or another in South America)
> 9) Egypt (or another in Africa, like Israel)
> 10) Russia
> 11) Indonesia (or another Asian country)
> 12) Saudi Arabia (or another middle-Eastern nation)
> 13) Mexico (or move 1 from the US here)
>
> I'm sure others have pondered where to optimally located the
> root-servers, for stability, given the geographic, political, and
> economic considerations. My list is the product of just 10 minutes of
> thinking, but I'd be curious to compare it to other people's thoughts
> (I'm sure having 10 out of 13 in the US isn't optimal!). The above
> includes the biggest countries by population and land mass, and also is
> geographically spread out.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
> --
> 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: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:36:32 -0500
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: MD5

Hello Joe,

Monday, November 4, 2002, 6:51:37 PM, you wrote:

JB> Thats just a list of root servers - it provides no contact information.
JB> Nor is any in the whois.

JB> The only contact information available is in the SOA whois gives the
JB> contact email address for the root operator as [email-masked].

There are links at the top of the page to the web sites of the various
organizations that maintain those servers.  These sites all have
contact information on them.

allan
- - --
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.org

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPccgoykg6TAvIBeFAQGULwP9F03Bp2W7ZwQuvxy+nPZdGV7a/nFtbPTt
Vmzx79o14xOQuaTCCb3WtDb3ugZbsxukDEcrvDad2eDTbrsfyhKh7vMYSAaAFSvV
K08FpAAi+oK7tvyqRoiyX3pnojPBkPb8VM8NtV96J5X3q+djCMiZbs/NmzT1vTv/
58xr2Vx4a+Y=
=lX69
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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, 5 Nov 2002 00:08:11 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations

Dear Mr. Palage,

May we have your permission to post this particular email to the WHOIS TF? 

Also, as you are aware there is an open comment site. We urge you, IF you are interested in having your comments included in the TF documentation, to post to that site. It can be found at dnso.org, or icann.org, click on announcements.  While we post to the WHOIS TR site, WHEN requested, we make it pretty clear that individuals should take responsibility for their own postings, to open sites.  We urge you to follow the procedures to ensure that your comments are included and available to others.  The TF is committed to reading the open comments site.  We have and will continue to advise that we cannot guarantee reading of other lists. We know that you understand the need to ensure a centralized posting site.

We also wish to thank you for attending the public meeting with the Registrars/Registries, Sunday in Shanghai. As committed in that meeting, the TF is working toward follow up with the registrars, especially, shortly. 

We hope that you will join that call, as well. 

Your thoughtful insights should be part of the "record". We hope you will chose to submit your comments [below]  through the formal comment process.  And, we look forward to your further participation. 
Best Regards, Marilyn Cade			Antonio Harris=
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations

On October 23rd I submitted my personal comments to the Whois Task Force,
see
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html.
Listed below are my personal recommendations for the Whois Task Force based
upon my earlier comments.

Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

Recommendations Preamble

The current Whois system fails to adequately meet the needs and concerns of
governments, intellectual property owners, domain name registration
authorities, as well as consumer and privacy advocacy groups. Although one
can attempt to solve certain aspects of the current problems in a piecemeal
fashion, only a comprehensive bottoms-up review and overhaul is likely to
succeed.

ICANN's role in this and other potential global policy issues should be to
identify and bring to the table those individuals and parties potentially
impacted by its processes, particularly those in developing countries that
may not have their voices and concerns heard in the current structure, as
well as registration authorities that are signatories to bi-lateral
contracts with ICANN. ICANN's role is not, nor should it be, to artificially
manufacture consensus under the auspices of Task Forces.

The ICANN Names Council Whois Task Force (Task Force) should be commended
for its pioneering efforts in starting a constructive dialogue on some of
the complex issues surrounding Whois.  However, the Task Force's failure to
address certain fundamental issues directly bears upon the validity of the
Task Force's ultimate recommendations. In light of these shortcomings, the
following recommendations are submitted.

Recommendation 1

Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months to
undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;

Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October 14,
2002 in which four (4) interim recommendations were put forth for public
comment;

Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural and
local law and their impact on registration authorities that are signatories
to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME); evolving
technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations; and
ICANN's Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the
public sector (governments).

Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council:

Extend it heartfelt appreciation to the members of the Task Force for their
diligent and tireless efforts to date;

Immediately dissolve the Task Force;

Reject implementing the proposed recommendation at this time until further
review can be conducted incorporating those data points not properly
considered by the Task Force;

Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that it create a Blue Ribbon Global
Whois Panel (Panel) to ensure that the viewpoints and concerns of all
Internet stakeholders are addressed, with such Panel ideally being composed
of the following representatives:

GAC Representative: This representative shall provide the Panel with the
various viewpoints (consensus if possible) regarding governmental positions
regarding access and accuracy of Whois data (i.e. data privacy, law
enforcement, consumer protection, etc.)

ITU Representative: Although the ITU is currently a participating member in
the GAC, their experience in two areas would be of particular value to the
Panel: (i) in the area of soliciting and representing the viewpoints of
emerging countries and economies that may not have a representative voice in
the current process and (ii) in the area of promoting the role of ITU Member
States in the internationalization of domain names and addresses of their
respective languages.

ICANN Registry Representative: This representative would be tasked with
soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registry operators to provide the
Panel with firsthand operational considerations.

ICANN Registrar Representative: This representative would be tasked with
soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registrars to provide the Panel
with a better understanding of the legal and technical dynamics of the
domain name registration marketplace.

ccTLD Registry Operator/Administrator: This representative would be tasked
with soliciting input from the ccTLD registry operator/administrator
regarding Whois policies and national laws.

Civil Libertarian: This representative would be tasked with representing the
interests of individual domain name registrants, specifically with regard to
a wide range of privacy issues.

IETF/IAB Technical Representative: This representative would be able to
provide the Panel with insight regarding standards efforts currently
underway in connection with Whois (CRISP) and international domain names.

Multi-National Business Representative: This individual would be tasked with
soliciting input from large multi-national businesses regarding concerns
about diverse and divergent Whois practices and the importance of Whois in
law enforcement and intellectual property rights.

SME Business Representative: This representative would be required to
solicit and provide the viewpoint of small and medium enterprises regarding
Whois considerations.

Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that ICANN extend invitations to
potential Panel participants to prevent any partisan politics that may exist
within the various ICANN constituencies. In the alternative, ICANN should
also consider outsourcing the coordination of this Panel to a neutral third
party organization with expertise in this subject matter similar to the work
undertaken by the World Intellectual Property Organization in connection
with the initial draft of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). One
potential neutral third party with expertise in this area would be the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Recommendation 2

Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months to
undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;

Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October 14,
2002 in which four (4) interim recommendation were put forth for public
comment;

Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural and
local law and their impact on registration authorities that are signatories
to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME); evolving
technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations; and
ICANN Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the public
sector.
Whereas, notwithstanding the aforementioned shortcoming of the Task Force's
efforts, there were several concepts would could be implemented in the short
term that would increase the accuracy of the Whois data.

Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council respectfully request that
the ICANN Board take the following actions:

ICANN approve a standardize Whois Accuracy Inquiry Notice (WAIN) prepared by
ICANN accredited registrars in consultation with domain name representatives
regarding inquires about false or inaccurate Whois data;

ICANN assist in translating the WAIN into as many languages as possible;

ICANN require that registrars shall send the standardized WAIN to their
domain name registrant after receiving a notification of potentially false
or inaccurate Whois data from ICANN's Internic.net whois portal (or
equivalent);

ICANN accredited registrars shall be required to send any WAIN in the
language(s) of the registration agreement, along with links to translations
of the WAIN in other languages;

The current 15 day time frame for registrants to respond to inquiries
regarding the accuracy of the Whois data shall be extended to 30 days to
provide the registrant and registrar adequate time to investigate and
respond to inquiries;

Registrars shall be required to comply with ICANN instructions regarding the
docketing software maintained in connection with the Internic.net whois
portal (or equivalent);

Registrars that are unable to verify the accuracy of the Whois data or fail
to receive instructions from the registrant within thirty (30) days shall
place the domain name of hold (i.e. the name is removed from the zone file
and it will not resolve) indefinitely;

Registrar shall not remove the domain name from hold status or renew the
domain name until registrant has provided documented proof which the
registrar shall be required to retain;

In the situation where the registrar receives a secondary inquiry regarding
the accuracy of Whois data for a specific domain name, the Registrar shall
require documented proof from the domain name registrant within the 30 day
time frame or have the domain name places on indefinite hold in accordance
with the process described above;

ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require
third parties submitting Whois accuracy inquiries to acknowledge that the
submission is not intended to interfere with the lawful operations of the
domain name registrant or registrar;

ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require that
third parties provide additional contact information to allow the domain
name registrant or registrar to initiate legal action against the third
party if such submission was designed to tortuously interfere with their
legal activity.

ICANN's General Counsel and Staff are instructed to move forward with
implementation of the above referenced recommendations as follows:

Option 1:

A bi-lateral amendment to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
executed by ICANN and every accredited registrar. However, if one or more
registrars fail to execute this bi-lateral amendment proceed to Option 2
below.

Option 2:

Establish a dialog with the registrar community to see if consensus exists
among the accredited registrars about adopting the above referenced
recommendations within the context of a Code of Conduct. If there is
consensus among the registrars about adopting this proposal as a Code of
Conduct, this Code of Conduct would then be unilaterally enforced against
all ICANN accredited registrars in accordance with the terms of the RAA. If
the registrars refuse or are unable to adopt a Code of Conduct, then proceed
to Option 3 below.

Option 3:

If ICANN is unable to implement the above referenced recommendations under
either Option 1 or 2, ICANN General Counsel and Staff are instructed to
enter into individual bi-lateral amendments to the RAA with registrars
incorporating these procedures.

For those registrars that execute the bi-lateral amendment to the RAA, ICANN
will provide that domain name registrar and its registrants with an extend
time window (30 days total) to investigate and respond to Whois data
accuracy inquires. ICANN also agrees to not publicly disclose any
statistical information on that registrar's compliance with Internic,net
Whois portal inquiries.

For those registrars that refuse not to enter into a bi-lateral amendment to
the RAA, ICANN will continue to enforce the shorter 15 notice and deletion
policy instead of the more flexible 30 day notice and hold policy.
Additionally, ICANN will publicly disclose statistical information on that
registrars' compliance with Internic.net Whois portal inquiries.

- --
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: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:42:42 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, at 19:07 [=GMT-0500], Joe Baptista wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> > Are there any plans to expand the list of root-servers, maybe to 26
> > from 13, for greater internet stability?
>
> they can't.  the limit is 13 mainly due to protocol limitations.
>
> what they can do is establish multiple root server confederations - but
> they can't do that either

They can, see http://www.orsn.org/

In times of peace a copy of the USG root.

> because Stuart Lynn laid an egg called "A
> Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS" - which see
>
> http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm

But he won't stay to hatch out whatever is in it.

- --
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, 5 Nov 2002 06:55:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, at 12:32 [=GMT-0500], Joe Baptista wrote:

> If the roots are once again under attack - how will the root server
> operators be contacted by a frustrated isp who can't resolve.

It is bad, you are right. But all good ISPs do secondary root, don't they,
of one of the root-servers near them? Some allow axfr: b, c, f. Perhaps
also i, which is down when I write this. Why doesn't the one run by ICANN
(l) allow zone transfer?

- --
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, 05 Nov 2002 01:14:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] who are the root server operators?

Marc and all assembly members,

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, at 19:07 [=GMT-0500], Joe Baptista wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > > Are there any plans to expand the list of root-servers, maybe to 26
> > > from 13, for greater internet stability?
> >
> > they can't.  the limit is 13 mainly due to protocol limitations.
> >
> > what they can do is establish multiple root server confederations - but
> > they can't do that either
>
> They can, see http://www.orsn.org/
>
> In times of peace a copy of the USG root.
>
> > because Stuart Lynn laid an egg called "A
> > Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS" - which see
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm
>
> But he won't stay to hatch out whatever is in it.

  And Stuart never made his point with ICP-3 on a couple of
other parts of that document as has been hashed over a number of
times by a number of other well versed DNS experts.  Also quoting
Kent Crispin in this document was a laugh as well.

>
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 03:54:30 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations

Dear Marilyn:

After three years I think we have moved beyond the formality of addressing
each other on a last name basis :-)

As you can see from my email header below, I did submit these comments on
the "record" to the Whois Task Force on Friday, November 1st. The fact that
they were not received raises the question of what other submissions may
have also been lost in the mail.

Best regards,

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Michael Palage's Proposed Recommendations

Attached please find my proposed recommendations for the Whois Task Force
based upon my earlier comments to the Task Force,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

- -----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:08 AM
To: Michael D. Palage; [email-masked]
Cc: Antonio Harris (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force
Recommendations

Dear Mr. Palage,

May we have your permission to post this particular email to the WHOIS TF?

Also, as you are aware there is an open comment site. We urge you, IF you
are interested in having your comments included in the TF documentation, to
post to that site. It can be found at dnso.org, or icann.org, click on
announcements.  While we post to the WHOIS TR site, WHEN requested, we make
it pretty clear that individuals should take responsibility for their own
postings, to open sites.  We urge you to follow the procedures to ensure
that your comments are included and available to others.  The TF is
committed to reading the open comments site.  We have and will continue to
advise that we cannot guarantee reading of other lists. We know that you
understand the need to ensure a centralized posting site.

We also wish to thank you for attending the public meeting with the
Registrars/Registries, Sunday in Shanghai. As committed in that meeting, the
TF is working toward follow up with the registrars, especially, shortly.

We hope that you will join that call, as well.

Your thoughtful insights should be part of the "record". We hope you will
chose to submit your comments [below]  through the formal comment process.
And, we look forward to your further participation.
Best Regards, Marilyn Cade			Antonio Harris=
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Michael Palage's Proposed Whois Task Force Recommendations

On October 23rd I submitted my personal comments to the Whois Task Force,
see
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00012.html.
Listed below are my personal recommendations for the Whois Task Force based
upon my earlier comments.

Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

Recommendations Preamble

The current Whois system fails to adequately meet the needs and concerns of
governments, intellectual property owners, domain name registration
authorities, as well as consumer and privacy advocacy groups. Although one
can attempt to solve certain aspects of the current problems in a piecemeal
fashion, only a comprehensive bottoms-up review and overhaul is likely to
succeed.

ICANN's role in this and other potential global policy issues should be to
identify and bring to the table those individuals and parties potentially
impacted by its processes, particularly those in developing countries that
may not have their voices and concerns heard in the current structure, as
well as registration authorities that are signatories to bi-lateral
contracts with ICANN. ICANN's role is not, nor should it be, to artificially
manufacture consensus under the auspices of Task Forces.

The ICANN Names Council Whois Task Force (Task Force) should be commended
for its pioneering efforts in starting a constructive dialogue on some of
the complex issues surrounding Whois.  However, the Task Force's failure to
address certain fundamental issues directly bears upon the validity of the
Task Force's ultimate recommendations. In light of these shortcomings, the
following recommendations are submitted.

Recommendation 1

Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months to
undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;

Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October 14,
2002 in which four (4) interim recommendations were put forth for public
comment;

Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural and
local law and their impact on registration authorities that are signatories
to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME); evolving
technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations; and
ICANN's Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the
public sector (governments).

Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council:

Extend it heartfelt appreciation to the members of the Task Force for their
diligent and tireless efforts to date;

Immediately dissolve the Task Force;

Reject implementing the proposed recommendation at this time until further
review can be conducted incorporating those data points not properly
considered by the Task Force;

Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that it create a Blue Ribbon Global
Whois Panel (Panel) to ensure that the viewpoints and concerns of all
Internet stakeholders are addressed, with such Panel ideally being composed
of the following representatives:

GAC Representative: This representative shall provide the Panel with the
various viewpoints (consensus if possible) regarding governmental positions
regarding access and accuracy of Whois data (i.e. data privacy, law
enforcement, consumer protection, etc.)

ITU Representative: Although the ITU is currently a participating member in
the GAC, their experience in two areas would be of particular value to the
Panel: (i) in the area of soliciting and representing the viewpoints of
emerging countries and economies that may not have a representative voice in
the current process and (ii) in the area of promoting the role of ITU Member
States in the internationalization of domain names and addresses of their
respective languages.

ICANN Registry Representative: This representative would be tasked with
soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registry operators to provide the
Panel with firsthand operational considerations.

ICANN Registrar Representative: This representative would be tasked with
soliciting input from all ICANN accredited registrars to provide the Panel
with a better understanding of the legal and technical dynamics of the
domain name registration marketplace.

ccTLD Registry Operator/Administrator: This representative would be tasked
with soliciting input from the ccTLD registry operator/administrator
regarding Whois policies and national laws.

Civil Libertarian: This representative would be tasked with representing the
interests of individual domain name registrants, specifically with regard to
a wide range of privacy issues.

IETF/IAB Technical Representative: This representative would be able to
provide the Panel with insight regarding standards efforts currently
underway in connection with Whois (CRISP) and international domain names.

Multi-National Business Representative: This individual would be tasked with
soliciting input from large multi-national businesses regarding concerns
about diverse and divergent Whois practices and the importance of Whois in
law enforcement and intellectual property rights.

SME Business Representative: This representative would be required to
solicit and provide the viewpoint of small and medium enterprises regarding
Whois considerations.

Respectfully submit to the ICANN Board that ICANN extend invitations to
potential Panel participants to prevent any partisan politics that may exist
within the various ICANN constituencies. In the alternative, ICANN should
also consider outsourcing the coordination of this Panel to a neutral third
party organization with expertise in this subject matter similar to the work
undertaken by the World Intellectual Property Organization in connection
with the initial draft of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). One
potential neutral third party with expertise in this area would be the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Recommendation 2

Whereas, the Task Force has endeavored over the last twenty (20) months to
undertake an analysis of various Whois issues;

Whereas, the Task Force has published an interim report dated October 14,
2002 in which four (4) interim recommendation were put forth for public
comment;

Whereas, despite the best efforts undertaken by the Task Force volunteer
members, there are certain fundamental aspects that were not properly
addressed and which directly bear upon the validity of the Task Force's
recommendations, including but not limited to, applicability of natural and
local law and their impact on registration authorities that are signatories
to bi-lateral contracts with ICANN; new market conditions (.NAME); evolving
technical standards (CRISP); international domain name considerations; and
ICANN Evolution and Reform  Committee calling for more input from the public
sector.
Whereas, notwithstanding the aforementioned shortcoming of the Task Force's
efforts, there were several concepts would could be implemented in the short
term that would increase the accuracy of the Whois data.

Therefore, it is resolved that the Names Council respectfully request that
the ICANN Board take the following actions:

ICANN approve a standardize Whois Accuracy Inquiry Notice (WAIN) prepared by
ICANN accredited registrars in consultation with domain name representatives
regarding inquires about false or inaccurate Whois data;

ICANN assist in translating the WAIN into as many languages as possible;

ICANN require that registrars shall send the standardized WAIN to their
domain name registrant after receiving a notification of potentially false
or inaccurate Whois data from ICANN's Internic.net whois portal (or
equivalent);

ICANN accredited registrars shall be required to send any WAIN in the
language(s) of the registration agreement, along with links to translations
of the WAIN in other languages;

The current 15 day time frame for registrants to respond to inquiries
regarding the accuracy of the Whois data shall be extended to 30 days to
provide the registrant and registrar adequate time to investigate and
respond to inquiries;

Registrars shall be required to comply with ICANN instructions regarding the
docketing software maintained in connection with the Internic.net whois
portal (or equivalent);

Registrars that are unable to verify the accuracy of the Whois data or fail
to receive instructions from the registrant within thirty (30) days shall
place the domain name of hold (i.e. the name is removed from the zone file
and it will not resolve) indefinitely;

Registrar shall not remove the domain name from hold status or renew the
domain name until registrant has provided documented proof which the
registrar shall be required to retain;

In the situation where the registrar receives a secondary inquiry regarding
the accuracy of Whois data for a specific domain name, the Registrar shall
require documented proof from the domain name registrant within the 30 day
time frame or have the domain name places on indefinite hold in accordance
with the process described above;

ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require
third parties submitting Whois accuracy inquiries to acknowledge that the
submission is not intended to interfere with the lawful operations of the
domain name registrant or registrar;

ICANN shall immediately modify the Internic.net Whois portal to require that
third parties provide additional contact information to allow the domain
name registrant or registrar to initiate legal action against the third
party if such submission was designed to tortuously interfere with their
legal activity.

ICANN's General Counsel and Staff are instructed to move forward with
implementation of the above referenced recommendations as follows:

Option 1:

A bi-lateral amendment to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
executed by ICANN and every accredited registrar. However, if one or more
registrars fail to execute this bi-lateral amendment proceed to Option 2
below.

Option 2:

Establish a dialog with the registrar community to see if consensus exists
among the accredited registrars about adopting the above referenced
recommendations within the context of a Code of Conduct. If there is
consensus among the registrars about adopting this proposal as a Code of
Conduct, this Code of Conduct would then be unilaterally enforced against
all ICANN accredited registrars in accordance with the terms of the RAA. If
the registrars refuse or are unable to adopt a Code of Conduct, then proceed
to Option 3 below.

Option 3:

If ICANN is unable to implement the above referenced recommendations under
either Option 1 or 2, ICANN General Counsel and Staff are instructed to
enter into individual bi-lateral amendments to the RAA with registrars
incorporating these procedures.

For those registrars that execute the bi-lateral amendment to the RAA, ICANN
will provide that domain name registrar and its registrants with an extend
time window (30 days total) to investigate and respond to Whois data
accuracy inquires. ICANN also agrees to not publicly disclose any
statistical information on that registrar's compliance with Internic,net
Whois portal inquiries.

For those registrars that refuse not to enter into a bi-lateral amendment to
the RAA, ICANN will continue to enforce the shorter 15 notice and deletion
policy instead of the more flexible 30 day notice and hold policy.
Additionally, ICANN will publicly disclose statistical information on that
registrars' compliance with Internic.net Whois portal inquiries.

- --
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 #1496
*************************