[bc-gnso] RE: .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments
Michael D. Palage
michael at palage.com
Tue Jan 24 20:02:37 UTC 2012
As everyone knows I work with a number of registry operators and I have been
a big proponent of the RSEP. Unfortunately, I think ICANN has fallen
woefully short of the representations that it made to contacting parties in
negotiating this provisions several years ago as it has not provided the
predictability originally promised to the registries. More disturbing is
that ICANN seeks to further retreat from these previous representations in
light of the new proposed registry template agreement.
That being said, instead of just repeating our position from four years ago,
perhaps we could undertake some fact based research. Specifically I would
try to identify what were the potential harms that lead to the BC's
recommendation to oppose the TelNic's RSEP request. We should then see if
those harms came to fruition. If the harms we feared became a reality, this
would reinforce our previously position and we could politely remind ICANN
that we were right. However, if our fears were unfounded, repeating the
same position in light of unfounded fears makes us look less credible.
Just my two cents.
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:34 PM
To: Marilyn Cade; bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public
To summarize the proposed change, the .Cat registry is requesting that
provisions are made to WHOIS requirements in order to comply with EU privacy
laws. If approved, WHOIS records for companies, businesses, partnerships,
non-profit entities, associations, etc. would remain publicly available.
However, domain name registrants that are individuals would be given the
option to elect whether or not their WHOIS records would be made publicly
A similar request was submitted by the .Tel registry in 2007.
In response to the .Tel request, the BC recommended that 1) the request
should not be handled as a "proposal for a new registry service" but instead
should follow the "ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy
Law", and 2) should the proposal not be withdrawn and re-directed as above,
ICANN must reject the proposal, as the proposal fails to adequately balance
the needs of all stakeholders and affected parties who use the WHOIS.
Regardless of the BC's comments, the .Tel request was ultimately approved.
I assume that our position still stands, and that we believe that this .Cat
request should not be handled as a "proposal for a new registry service",
and that if it is not treated in that way, that we would ask ICANN to reject
the proposal, as not every registrant (even though the majority likely are)
is subject to EU law.
Director of Product Marketing
208 389-5779 PH
From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:48 AM
To: Elisa Cooper; bc - GNSO list
Subject: .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments
Elisa Cooper, the BC WHOIS Rapporteur, or Steve DelBianco, V.Chair, Policy
Coordination, may offer additional comments.
The Chair's purpose is to forward to all BC members.
Like all members, I look to our Rapporteur for WHOIS, supported by our Vice
Chair, Policy Coordination, to advise.
However, for any new members, WHOIS is a key priority for BC.
Marilyn Cade, BC Chair
.CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes
Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 20 January2012
Categories/Tags: Contracted Party Agreements
ICANN is opening today the public comment period for the Fundacio puntCAT's,
request to change its Whois according to EU data protection legislation. The
public comment period will be closed on 3 March 2012.
The .cat registry, submitted a Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) on
At this time, ICANN has conducted a preliminary review in accordance with
the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and process set forth at
http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html. ICANN's preliminary review
(based on the information provided) did not identify any significant
competition, security, or stability issues.
The implementation of the request requires an amendment to the .cat Registry
Agreement signed 23 September 2005. This public forum requests comments
regarding the proposed amendment.
Public Comment Box Link:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso