[nc-whois] RE: suggested assignments for next steps drafting on policy recommendations and outreach planning
- To: "NC-WHOIS (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [nc-whois] RE: suggested assignments for next steps drafting on policy recommendations and outreach planning
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:09:07 -0400
- Cc: "BC Secretariat (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Andrew McLaughlin (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-Index: AcJBvEFvetwmeFlXTQqQ/4ST93/zFAAUTcxwANXgFoAAhxJzIA==
- Thread-Topic: suggested assignments for next steps drafting on policy recommendations and outreach planning
sorry, I understand that the "bold" didn't come through...
We suggested the following team leaders, who would take on the coordination of the team, help to document any extensions, etc.
Group 1: Steve
Group 2: Ram
Group 3: Kristy
Group 4: Karen
Help to coordinate the participation related to that topic in the outreach sessions, etc.
It's about a 3 week assignment, we think... :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 5:00 PM
> To: NC-WHOIS (E-mail)
> Cc: BC Secretariat (E-mail); Andrew McLaughlin (E-mail)
> Subject: FW: suggested assignments for next steps drafting on policy recommendations and outreach planning
> Tony and I have given some consideration to a suggested way to make assignments for the ongoing development of the recommendations. We suggest the following: that we assign teams to develop the next phase of the recommendations.
> Noted in bold is a suggestion for a "team leader" for each team. . Tony or I will be on two teams each. ... ... but since we have other work to do, including coordinating outreach, leave the drafting to the teams... IF you have a strong preference to be on another team, email us...
> Andrew, can you take a look at the four areas, and perhaps we can carve out a way, that you might suggest, on how best to support the work of the TF. We welcome your participation.
> Secondly, then, based on discussions, we 've developed, [see below] a list of categories for outreach, and would plan to ask Andrew to support and participate in these efforts as well. Please add in other suggestions on Monday during the call.
> We suggest that Monday's call be confined to 1 hour if possible, but definitely not more than 1 1/2 hours..., and that we try to reach agreement on what the Working Groups should do, and what the timelines are, whether they need assistance with conf. bridge support or someone on the WG can provide it, what a next stage output would look like, and then discuss scheduling for outreach. Working Groups would then work separately and report on the next Monday's call.
> IF you have contacts to contribute to the categories for outreach, [names, emails, etc.] please plan to provide them, but we won't use the listserv to do that, since it is a little impolite to spread other's contact information around. :-0
> WORKING GROUPS FOR DEVELOPING NEXT STAGE RECOMMENDATIONS BY AREA:
> 1. Accuracy of the data contained in the WHOIS database -- POSSIBLE TEAM: STEVE METALITZ, TONY*, KEN,HAKIKUR, BRET
> 2. Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs: POSSIBLE TEAM: RAM, LAURENCE, MARILYN*, OSCAR
> 3. Better searchability : POSSIBLE TEAM: TROY, TIM,KRISTY, ABEL,TONY*, PHILIPP
> 4. Better protection of data subjects from marketing use of the data in the WHOIS database: POSSIBLE TEAM: KAREN, SARAH, THOMAS, ,MARILYN*, STEVE
> 5. * C0-CHAIRS WILL PARTICIPATE AS MEMBERS OF WORKING GROUPS.
> All invitations should be documented by either an initial email with the invitation, or a confirmation, which describes the purpose of the outreach. remember that outreach will need to be documented, and please invite whomever is presenting, to provide the names of the presenters/participants, titles, affiliations, and ask them if they have materials they wish to present, as appropriate. All materials would then become part of the archive. For some of our "guests", they will merely wish to dialogue.
> OUTREACH PLANNING:
> GAC: SEE EMAIL WITH REQUESTED CONTACTS
> ccTLDs: see email [MC will do a draft]> to invite /suggested list of ccTLDS which we might start with
> Governmental contacts update: EC, USG, German - Recommendation: Start with USG -- Marilyn has list of interested contacts in USG who could be invited to conf. call.
> Verisign: email draft - Ram: Would you take the lead on working with Verisign to invite them?
> Registrars - re Accuracy issues - Ken/Tim/Philipp: possibly try to work with the list of Registrars who are participating in the 9 /19 FTC meeting as a "core" group to hear from. Tim, can you take the lead on that invitation as you are on the AdCom of the Registrar Constituency?
> A Accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database
> The current Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), section 220.127.116.11, requires registered name holders to provide to their registrars "accurate and reliable contact details." According to 3.7.2, the "willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information" or the failure to respond to inquiries on the accuracy in a timely manner "shall constitute a material breach of the [...] contract and be a basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration." ICANN has recently called registrars> '> attention to these provisions, by issuing an advisory concerning WHOIS data accuracy.
> 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. .
> The WHOIS Task Force is aware that although existing contracts allow for enforcement of applicable contractual provisions, in many cases, the only allowed penalty for a breach of the contract is revocation of the ability to register names by the registrar. This all-or-nothing system may actually impede enforcement. In addition, registrars have not established clear enforcement mechanisms to ensure their customers (resellers, ISPs or end-users) provide accurate data.
> 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.
> 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.
> For example, mandatory periodic re-validation of WHOIS data has been identified as one important technique for improving data quality which may require a change in ICANN policy, to the extent that it is not voluntarily adopted by registrars.
> B Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs.
> Currently, whois data elements are, in general, uniform across gTLDs. They are not uniform across country-code top level domains, some of which do not even provide a Whois or equivalent service. There is currently no uniform format for the responses provided by WHOIS services.
> The Task Force believes that the questions of uniform data formats and uniformity of data elements need to be discussed and handled separately.
> As far as data formats are concerned, an open technical standardization process building on the work of ICANN> '> s earlier .com/.net/.org WHOIS Committee and the ietf-whois mailing list should be undertaken. The committee recommended in early 2001 that a standard Whois format should be phased in as expeditiously as possible that does not rely on TCP port 43, such as the XML-based format, which is described in detail in the Internet draft > '> Whois Export and Exchange Format> '> of January 26, 2001.>
> The present Task Force believes that the use of such a uniform data format across gTLD and ccTLD environments should be evaluated.
> The survey data evaluated by the Task Force seem to indicate that there is considerable support for such uniformity among the respondents to the questionnaire.
> The Task Force believes that WHOIS data elements should be uniform across all gTLDs.
> Uniformity of data elements across gTLDs and ccTLDs, while found desirable by an extremely strong majority of respondents to the Task Force> '> s survey, can be expected to lead to conflicting views caused by national or regional cultural and legal differences with respect to a number of issues, including registrants> '> privacy rights, and divergent views regarding the relationship of ccTLDs to ICANN consensus policies.
> 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.
> C Better searchability of WHOIS databases.
> The Task Force> '> s Survey covered three kinds of improved searchability of WHOIS databases: (1) Centralized public access to WHOIS databases on a per-TLD level, (2) the use of data elements different from the domain name as query keys, and (3) the provision of still more advanced database query capabilities, and centralized search services across TLDs. The Task Force> '> s Survey. indicates that, among respondents, there is demand and support for each of these services. The first two of these aspects (centralized access on a per-TLD basis, and the use of other data elements as search keys) mostly amount to a restoration of the InterNIC WHOIS status quo ante, and may be considered part of the current policy environment, but they are not being enforced.
> The more advanced services described under (3) do presently not exist in the .com/.net/.org environment. However, centralized access to one or more cross-TLD Whois services is specifically provided for in the existing gTLD registry agreements. One registry also has taken on an obligation to conduct research and development activities toward a universal Whois service. Furthermore, enhanced searchability is to be offered by at least some of the new gTLD registries in accordance with their accreditation agreements.
> As far as the gTLD environment is concerned, all these services can be implemented either by registrars/registries or as third party services, based on Bulk Access to WHOIS data. The survey revealed that many of those who demand such services believe that the services should be free for users, and should be paid for as part of registration fees.
> 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.
> 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.
> D Marketing use of WHOIS data; bulk access provisions.
> > The survey undertaken by the Task Force strongly suggests that respondents generally do not accept the use of their personal information contained in the WHOIS database for unsolicited marketing activities. Respondents also generally preferred opt-in approaches to such marketing use over opt-out approaches (> like the one envisioned by section 18.104.22.168 of the current RAA).
> Based on these results, the Task Force recommends a review of the current bulk access provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Such review should explore the option to reduce registrars> '> discretion in the design of their respective bulk access agreements, in favor of stronger privacy protection for registrants, stronger restrictions on marketing use of WHOIS data, and facilitation of bulk access for value-added non-marketing services, as originally contemplated in the RAA. 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 22.214.171.124 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 126.96.36.199 (prohibition of use of bulk access data for marketing purposes) and 188.8.131.52 (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> "> ).