<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-whois] Comments on the WHOIS TF Final Report from Jeff Neuman, NeuStar
Thanks
for forwarding Jeff Neuman's comments. We appreciate your forwarding them
to the Task Force.
As an
announcement ot the Task Force, Tony and I have asked Glen to extend the
deadline by about
2
weeks... and to notify Louie to make that change as well on the ICANN
announce...
Comments from Jeff Neuman, NeuStar, are in ALL
CAPS below.
-Ram
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [GTLD-RC] Fw: [nc-whois] Public comment period on
WHOIS TF fi nal report untill 14 August
My
comments are in ALL CAPS below:
Registry Constituency: FYI - Aug 14th is
the deadline for public comments on the WHOIS Task Force's
recommendations, prior to submission to the ICANN Board.
Best Regards,
Ram.
For your quick reference, these are the key
recommendations for this document:
1. Accuracy of the data contained in
the WHOIS database
The Task Force
believes that the approach of actually enforcing the existing contractual
provisions is the essential first step toward improving WHOIS data accuracy in the gTLD
environment.
[Neuman,
Jeff]
I AM ASSUMING THIS IS REFERRING
TO CONTRACTS THAT ICANN HAS WITH THE REGISTRARS AND IT WILL BE ICANN DOING
THE ENFORCING?
The Task Force
believes that a method of graduated sanctions or enforcements
against parties who breach the requirement to provide accurate information
and to maintain an accurate Whois database, potentially as a combination of
policy and financial penalties, should be considered, in order to facilitate
the actual enforcement of the current policy with respect to WHOIS data
accuracy.
[Neuman,
Jeff]
AGAIN, IS THIS SANCTIONS
AGAINST THE REGISTRARS OR AGAINST THE REGISTRIES? OR DOES THIS MEAN
SANCTIONS AGAINST REGISTRANTS THAT PROVIDE THE FALSE AND MISLEADING
INFORMATION?
If enforcement of
current contractual provisions
does not lead to an improvement of WHOIS data accuracy, then more
substantial changes to the RAA itself or the establishment of consensus
policies (as necessary) should be considered.
2. Uniformity of data formats and
elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs
The Task Force
believes that the questions of uniform data formats and uniformity of data
elements need to be discussed and handled
separately.
The present Task Force believes that the use of such a uniform data
format across gTLD and ccTLD environments should be
evaluated.
The Task Force
believes that WHOIS data elements should be uniform across all
gTLDs.
[Neuman, Jeff]
MAYBE THE CORE ELEMENTS SHOULD
BE, BUT REGISTRIES HAVE DIFFERENT ITEMS THEY COLLECT. FOR EXAMPLE,
AFILIAS HAS TRADEMARK INFORMATION IN THEIR WHOIS (FOR ANYONE THAT
PARTICIPATED
IN SUNRISE).
The Task Force believes that this topic should be
the subject of separate deliberations.
These deliberations should take into account specific aspects of the TLD environments, as well as the
value of accountability and
transparency across the domain name system. Public interest concerns
should be taken into account in an appropriate manner. The objective should be to identify the
best way to make progress toward the goal of the uniformity that all users of the system clearly
desire.
3. Better
searchability
To facilitate the
restoration of full searchability of Whois databases [see (1) and (2)
above], ICANN should explore
both enforcing the mandate
to registrars and registries to
provide (or to cooperate in the provision of) such complete WHOIS search service, and a
market-based approach based on bulk access to WHOIS data.
[Neuman,
Jeff]
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
"MARKET-BASED APPROACH BASED ON BULK ACCESS TO WHOIS DATA"? THIS SEEMS
EXTREMELY CONVOLUTED. I CAN HONESTLY STATE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT
MEANS.
With respect to the more advanced services described
in (3) above, the Task Force does not recommend any policy changes. The Task
Force suggests that ICANN explore how best to swiftly develop and implement a plan for cross-registry
Whois services, including through
third party services, based on bulk access to WHOIS data.
[Neuman,
Jeff]
THIS SEEMS A LITTLE UNINFORMED. DEVELOPMENT OF
CROSS-REGISTRY WHOIS SERVICES IS NOT THROUGH BULK ACCESS TO WHOIS DATA, BUT
IS RATHER MANDATED BY OUR AGREEMENTS WITH ICANN IF A THIRD PARTY PROVIDER IS
SELECTED BY ICANN. THIS THIRD PARTY SHOULD BE A NEUTRAL ONE THAT
IS NOT IN ANY WAY AFFILIATED WITH A REGISTRY OR
REGISTRAR.
4.
Better protection of data subjects from
marketing use of the data contained in the WHOIS database
Based on these results, the Task Force recommends a
review of the current bulk access provisions of the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement. In
particular, the following possible changes should be examined more
closely:
·
The policy could attempt to ensure that
protection mechanisms can't be circumvented by third parties selling
indirect access to bulk data. This could, for instance, be
accomplished by changing "may require" in section 3.3.6.5 to "shall
require." It could also be
accomplished by requiring bulk access users to impose conditions on the
use of their products and services which are similar to the ones in
ICANN's policy.
·
Sections 3.3.6.3 (prohibition of use of bulk access
data for marketing purposes) and 3.3.6.6 (opt-out provision) could be
simplified, unified, and
extended to include contact data of organizational entities. Marketing use
of registrants' data outside existing business relationships could depend
on the registrant's prior agreement ("opt-in").
[Neuman,
Jeff]
THESE ARE SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS I
HAD.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|