<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] Votebot
Title: Message
Rick,
I
think it would be best to set up a votebot to make sure that the integrity of
the vote is not called into question. Although the default parameters
for the votebot is 7 days it can be reduced. Please look into this ASAP.
Bryan I am going
to need you to post a list of eligible voters and their emails based upon the
most recent dues statement. Please make sure that those registrars that have
mistakenly deposited the money into ICANN's account instead of the constituency
account are properly accounted for.
Regarding the Task Force alternate
recommendation discussing pricing, I believe that based upon my earlier e-mail
about anti-trust concerns the Registrar Constituency should never vote on a
proposal discussing/recommending/setting a price for a service. Therefore, I
would strongly recommend that the registrars just vote on the first
recommendation that never mentions price, and we abstain on the alternate
recommendations.
If
there are any objections please let me know, because time is of
the essence.
Best
regards,
Mike
P.S.
Regarding my previous post about how our Registrar Constituency Representative
should vote. A third option which has been suggest to me is to keep the current
default process, where Representatives vote what they feel is most
representative and in the best interest of the constituency. Here are the argued
pro and con in connection with this option.
The
biggest "con" to this scenario is that you can have rouge Names Council
representatives vote on matters that are inconsistent with constituency
viewpoints. The argument to date has always been that rouge Name Council
representatives can be voted out when they stand for re-election. One of the
topics that has been discussed in connection with the ICANN Board is that an
elected Director must act in the best interest of the corporation and not at the
direction of his constituents that placed him/her there. As I said I do not know
the answer as to how our names council representatives should vote in close
contested issues.
why
dont we have a votebot so there is no consusion?
suggest you comment :
2.copies to the NC
3. copies also to the reps
ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:32
PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Public
comment period on WHOIS TF final report untill 14 August
Should we be directing comments to our NC reps or directly to the TF
or?
-rwr
"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on
the shore like an idiot."
- Steven Wright
Please review our ICANN
Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
Registrar Constituency:
FYI -
Aug 14th is the deadline for public comments on the WHOIS Task
Force's recommendations, prior to submission to the ICANN
Board.
If anyone has specific comments
questions on any of the recommendations below, best you get "on the
record" ASAP...
Ken Stubbs
For your reference, here are some
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:26
AM
Subject: [nc-whois] Public comment period on
WHOIS TF final report untill 14 August
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|