DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [nc-whois] a question

Hi Danny

You are a member of the committee and I suggest you raise this issue at
meeting on the 6th. Verisign is just one registry operator there are
already 244
ccTLDs and 7 new gTLDs who all need to have the opportunity for

It would be premature for the NC to start a Working Group, as our Survey
and the
results are just the first phase, and as you indicated it may be
necessary to
have other mechanisms when we start the "real" work and undertake "phase
2" -
specific recomendations as to the type of mechanisms for policy work
will be
contained in our report.

Looking forward to meeting on the 6th when we will discuss this....



DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Paul,
> Before we get started on the tabulation and assessment of the WHOIS survey
> data, I have a question to ask.
> The Revised VeriSign .com Registry Agreement: Appendix W states:
> "Registry Operator agrees that one of the early goals of the Improvements is
> to design and develop a Universal Whois Service that will allow public access
> and effective use of Whois across all Registries and all TLDs."
> It also states:
> "Registry Operator further agrees that if it successfully designs and
> develops the Universal Whois Service it will (a) make the Application Program
> Interfaces necessary to produce software which can efficiently deploy and use
> the Universal Whois Service available to applications developers on an open,
> non-proprietary, standards-based and royalty-free basis."
> It is my understanding that "applications developers" are not bound by ICANN
> consensus policies.  Once a centralized Universal Whois service is developed,
> any marketing group that develops its own software applications could utilize
> this Universal Whois to target a worldwide client base with commercial
> solicitations.
> If we seek to protect the rights of those who value privacy, a consensus
> policy which defines the parameters of this Universal WHOIS must be developed
> prior to the commencement of research and development of the Universal Whois
> Service currently scheduled to be inaugurated no later than December 31, 2001
> (as we must be reasonably fair to VeriSign which after all is committing its
> own funds to this project).
> I believe that we are fast approaching the point where a full Working Group
> will be required.  This Universal WHOIS will affect the daily lives of
> millions of worldwide domain name holders, and several domain name policy
> issues are at stake.  The membership of this committee, even with the benefit
> of preliminary data from Survey participants, cannot lay claim to
> "consensus".  We are too small a group, and there is no mechanism in place
> that allows for outreach to impacted parties in a structured participatory
> environment.  The issues are too large, and the stakes too high to continue
> limiting discussion to only the members of this committee.
> Only a widely publicized Working Group can offer the range of commentary and
> dialogue that is required to meet this challenge.   The outreach being
> conducted by VeriSign is not sufficient for this purpose.
> At what point will you deem it proper to convene a Working Group as an
> adjunct to your committee efforts?

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