Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT resolution v. 2.1a

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-12-12 10:11:09 -0500, Steve Metalitz wrote:

> Per Marilyn's suggestion that we move this issue ot the list, I
> attach version 2.1 of the draft resolution, with the relevant
> excerpts from the Final Report pasted in in italics.  I hope this
> will give a clearer picture of the proposed resolution, which the
> IPC Names Council representatives support. 

A couple of technical observations.


1. The bulk-access-related consensus policies as cut & pasted by
Steve (in fact, it's just the summary given in 3.2.II) miss the one
in section 3.2.IV.E of the report, which is about the resale of bulk
whois data.  I'd hate to see this drop out on formal grounds.

2. It doesn't make much sense to talk about "consensus policies
within the meaning of section 3.3.7 and 3.7.8 of the current RAA" --
the definition of a consensus policy is in chapter 4 of the RAA;
3.3.7 and 3.7.8 talk about specific topics for consensus policies.



Unless there are legal reasons against this, I'd suggest that we put
all the references into whereas clauses, like this, to be inserted
after the current whereas clause number 4 (further comments in
brackets):

	WHEREAS the task force has recommended, in section 3.1.I of
	the Policy Report, measures for an improved enforcement of
	current policy with respect to WHOIS data accuracy;

	WHEREAS section 3.3.7 of the May 2001 Registrar
	Accreditation Agreement ("the RAA") provides that the
	current bulk access policy may be replaced by a new
	consensus policy;

	WHEREAS section 3.7.8 of the RAA provides that registrars
	shall abide by policies requiring periodic re-verification
	of contact information;

(The current wording of these two whereas clauses only refers to the
May 2001 RAA.  Any ideas on how to make it clear that this also
applies to the older RAAs, to the extent applicable, without making
the entire thing unreadable?)

	WHEREAS the task force has proposed, in section 3.1.III.A of
	the Policy Report, a consensus policy on the re-verification
	of registrant contact information at the time of the renewal
	of a domain name;
	
	WHEREAS the task force has proposed, in section 3.1.III.B of
	the Policy report, a consensus policy on the applicability
	of the Redemption Grace Period to domain names canceled due
	to inaccurate or unreliable contact data;

(While 3.1.III.B is clearly consensus on the task force, I still
doubt that it should be adopted as a /consensus policy/, as opposed
to a general recommendation of the council.  Louis should probably
be consulted on this /before/ the NC meets, in order to give advice
on the contractual landscape surrounding the RGP.)

	WHEREAS the task force has proposed, in section 3.2.IV.E of
	the Policy Report, a consensus policy on the resale of whois
	data made available in bulk under a bulk access agreement as
	defined in section 3.3.6.1 of the RAA;

(A problem with 3.2.IV.E is that it's advice conditioned on 
particular interpretations of RAA language.  Sub-part (ii) is
probably the thing to really adopt.)

	WHEREAS the task force has proposed, in sectios 3.2.IV.C and
	3.2.IV.F of the Policy Report, a consensus policy
	eliminating use of whois data made available in bulk under a
	bulk access agreement in section 3.3.6.1 of the RAA;
	
	WHEREAS the task force has, in the Policy Report, identified
	specific issues with regard to accuracy of WHOIS data and
	bulk access which require further work;

(Add references to section numbers?)


The old whereas clause 5 would then follow.

The actual resolution text could be changed like this:

	1. RESOLVED, that the Names Council accepts the Policy
	Report on Accuracy and Bulk Access and adopts the consensus
	policy recommendations designated above;
	
	1a. RESOLVED, that the Names Council recommends that the
	Task Force's recommendations for improved enforcement of
	existing policy with regard to WHOIS data accuracy be
	implemented;

The remaining resolved clauses would then follow.

I'm attaching a version of the resolution with these changes
included.  (This is the same document circulated earlier off-list.)

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

Draft-nc-resolution.doc

draft-nc-res.pdf