DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Whois Committee Report


Thanks for this submission, WHOIS is a very important issue. I do feel however
the objective specified in your report is inappropriate.

As for the WHOIS committee, it is very appropriate for ICANN staff to ask an
advisory group to give "advice" on how exisitng contractual obligations can be
implemented. The fact that it has taken so (very) long to come to consensus is
proving that the task finding consensus on the implementation of the existing
contracts is not an easy one. As we are all working in a vacuumn, (we don't know
how much/little work is being done) I believe the WHOIS committee should publish
the areas of consensus and indicate where there is (no) consensus asap, and
conclude its work such that a more inclusive process may be started.

IMHO, we should wait until the Advisory Group has concluded, (possibly ask ICANN
staff to set a time table to ensure it concluded in a reasonable time frame).
The WHOIS issue should then be opened up for broad consultation and guidance
from "experts".  When we reach that stage (and we are not at that stage yet)  I
would anticipate the NC (and the various constituencies) being part of  the
groups of experts. Indeed the NC may once the WHOIS report is publised initiate
a review of the WHOIS programme such that privicay concerns can be balanced with
the requirements of consumer protection/DNS and IP operational stability.

I hope we can discuss this issue briefly on the next NC call with a status
report on the WHOIS Committee's offering to the communtiy.



YJ Park wrote:

> Hello Council members,
> As it was promised, Whois Committee report is hereby presented.
> Hope we can have other relevant docusments for deep and substantial
> discussion during the NC teleconference.
> Thanks,
> YJ
> ========================================
>             Whois Committee Report to Names Council
>                                                              2000. 12. 13
>              YJ Park(Non-Commercial Constituency Rep)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Table of Contents
> 1. Whois Committee Discussion Development in the DNSO
> 2. Objective of this Report
> 3. The position from the ICANN Staff, especially Louis Tuton
> 4. The positions from Karl Auerbach, At-Large Board Director
> 5. European perspective expressed by Dany Vandromme, NCC Rep
> 6. Opinions from Paul Kane, Registrar Constituency Rep
> 7. The concerns expressed YJ Park, NCC Rep
> 8. Motion to the NC
> 9. Reference
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Whois Committee Discussion Development in the DNSO
> Its first public appearance "Whois Task Force" is on the DNSO's
> registrars' mailing list on July 15, notifying that this ICANN task
> force has participants from many other constituency.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00077.html
> Its highlight on Whois Committee started since it was mentioned
> by Louis Tuton during Oct NC teleconference on Oct.19th.
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001019.NCtelecon-minutes.html
> It was discussed among the whole NC for the first time during MdR
> on Nov. 14 wrapped by Louis' comment, "Receiving comments from
> the public, and managing consensus, is the NC’s role, not the Staff’s
> role. We’ll leave that to you."
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001114.NCmdr-minutes.html
> 2. Objective of this Report
> This initial effort aims at evaluating whether it is proper for ICANN
> staff to set up the Whois Committee through lack of consultation
> process with other relevant interest parties which has brought up
> criticisms such as lack of openess and its transparent procedural flaw.
> This initial effort aims at clarifying the "functions" of Whois Committee
> by exploring the potential chances to be involved with the policy-
> related issues and if it is decided by the public that it is NC's role
> as Louis had suggested in MdR, NC has to develop its own more
> equivalent structure from Registrar- and IP-focused current mix.
> If it is decided by the public that it is ICANN staff's role, NC is
> entitled to ask for its more specific timetable which doesn's provide
> its current Whois Committee Report.
> http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/
> 3. The position from the ICANN Staff, especially Louis Tuton
> Based upon roving_reporter Ted Byfield, (See Ref. 1)
> Whois Committee has been looking at Technical/operational aspects
> of implementation of the Whois provisions of the ICANN-NSI Registry
> Agreement(See Ref. 2) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
> (See Ref. 3) Section 9 of the Registry Agreement and Section II.F
> of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement require the provision of
> various web-based and port 43 services.
> ICANN staff,  which is responsible for implementing the agreements
> asked the group to provide technical suggestions for ways to implement
> these provisions without unnecessary burdens on the registrars.
> Current participants are NSI Registrar, Melbourne IT, CORE,
> Domain Bank, Sarah Deutsch, Richard Kroon, Mark Kosters,
> and Jonathan Whitehead, with Rebecca Nesson providing coordination.
> When and if it does, it is expected to write up its suggestions
> for further consideration by the procedures and in the venues
> that are appropriate based on the nature of the group's suggestions,
> and for the suggestions to be disseminated to the registrars and
> posted on the web site.
> 4 Positions from Karl Auerbach, At-Large Board Director
> The whois, particularly, when unified, will be viewed by many as one of
> the net's largest potential privacy exposures.  As one who has spent many
> years dealing with privacy and security technology, I am very concerned
> about the difficulty - difficulty often approaching impossibility - of
> layering on patches after the basic architecture has been cast in stone.
> We are rapidly, indeed more rapidly than some feel comfortable, moving
> towards an internationalized DNS.  This will likely have a significant
> impact on the issues of data representation, but it will have even a
> greater impact on the issue of searching and on the software by which
> security and privacy policies are applied.
> The whois structures are used in the IP address space.  Indeed, from an
> operational perspective the whois data associated with IP addresses has a
> far more important operational role than it does in the DNS side of
> affairs.  It's probably well worthwhile examining to what extent common
> elements, particularly a common data representation technique, can be
> shared between these regimes.
> Again, as the issues are viewed not as a set of registrars meeting their
> contractual requirements, but rather as something that establishes policy
> for DNS in general, or has the likelyhood of establishing such policy by
> becoming a model that others will copy, then I think that the scope must
> necessarily expand to address these, admittedly difficult but nevertheless
> important, issues.
> 5. European perspective expressed by Dany Vandromme,
>     Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
> European countries feel very concerned about protection of
> personal data, privacy and related matters. The single point about anonymous
> registration thatt you mention in you letter, is by no way, an adequate
> scope to answer these issues. Therefore I would recommend that ICANN
> includes also these aspects in the work of the group.
> 6. Opinions from Paul Kane, Registrar Constituency
> As for the ICANN WHOIS Committee, I urge the Committee not focus
> on Policy issues which are better handled in a different forum, but
> on an WHOIS output remembering that the published "output" is a "window"
> or small amount of the total data held by the Registrar (who may for example
> hold but not display the billing record associated with a domain).
> 7. The concerns expressed YJ Park,
>     Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
> Concern 1: Unclear Scope, Timetable and Formation Procedure
> The scope described in .com/.net/.org Whois Committee is not clear
> whether this can be limited to "implementation" issues only. For example,
> there is an explicit willingness to take actions regarding policy issues
> other than implementation ones in the Subsection II.F.8 in the staff report.
> "This subsection concerns future, amended Whois policies."
> Regarding Implementation Issues listed up in the ICANN staff report,
> there are some parts which will directly to lead to the "policy issues".
> - If a standard format is to be encouraged, what should it be?
> - to provide supplementary data
> - to limit the number of queries from a particular site
> - to limit the number of responses returned to a single query
> - to provide nameserver IP addresses in response to Whois inquiries
> - a standard definition of the role of technical and administrative contacts
> - better dissemination of information about the anonymous registration
>    mechanism
> Concern 2 : More Specific Description Needed.
> This committee was created before 7 new TLD registries has been
> designated by the Board. What would be the potential relations between
> this project on .com, .net, .org and the 7 new TLD registries and their
> registars? This is also unclear.
> 8. Motion to the NC:
> Based upon the reference report provided by ICANN staff, it is noted
> there are many concernable policy issues are mingled with implemenation
> ones without proper representatives from the diverse DNSO stakeholders.
> Therefore, NC hereby proposes to Whois committee and ICANN staff
> as it was proposed by Louis in MdR start to receive comments from
> the public and decide its authorized formation equipped with diverse
> membership structure and open and transparent procedure with clearer
> description regarding its scope and timeframe.
> Reference:
> 1. http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/index.html#2
> 2. http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-registry-agreement-04nov99.htm
> 3. http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>