<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"><HEAD><TITLE>RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO IMPROVING NOTIFICATION AND CONSENT FOR THE USE CONTACT DATA IN THE WHOIS SYSTEM</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: @Arial Unicode MS;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
H1 {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; TEXT-ALIGN: center; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
H2 {
FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0in -0.5in 0pt 0in; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
P.MsoBodyText {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0in -0.5in 0pt 0in; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoBodyText {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0in -0.5in 0pt 0in; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoBodyText {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; MARGIN: 0in -0.5in 0pt 0in; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
OL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in
}
UL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mark,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I support this statement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please correct a typo in the last line of comment
on item 2</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(Constituents).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tony Harris</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mcf@uwm.edu href="mailto:mcf@uwm.edu">Mark McFadden</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=ispcp@icann.org
href="mailto:ispcp@icann.org">ispcp@icann.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=mcf@uwm.edu
href="mailto:mcf@uwm.edu">mcf@uwm.edu</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [ispcp] SECRETARIAT: ISPCP
Position on WHOIS Notification and Consent</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV id=cover-sheet>All:<BR><BR>The attached document is proposed as the ISPCP
statement on the recommendations concerning improvements to notification and
consent and whois. The Secretariat encourages comment on this response to the
ISPCP mailing list. If consensus is reached on the list, this document will be
forwarded to the gNSO as the position of the ISPCP community on Monday at 1200
CST (1800 UTC).<BR><BR>Thank you,<BR><BR>Mark McFadden<BR>ISPCP Secretariat
<HR>
</DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<H1 style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Recommendations
relating to improving notification and consent for the use contact data in the
WHOIS system<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></H1>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="@Arial Unicode MS"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: '@Arial Unicode MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">1.<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=1><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><![endif]><SPAN lang=ES>Registrars must
ensure that disclosures regarding availability and third-party access to
personal data associated with domain names actually be presented to
registrants during the registration process. Linking to an external web
page is not sufficient.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText><B><I><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">The ISPCP constituency supports this recommendation,
as it is a key factor to provide understanding of the registrant as to
the treatment that his/her data will be subject to. If this can be
accomplished during the registration process, instead of through reading “fine
print” after the registration has been concluded, it would appear to be a
sound business practice, and conducive to transparency with regards to
personal data manipulation. Pointing the registrant to a webpage is not a good
solution, as the registrant may waive this option in the hurry to complete
his/her registration, perhaps failing to pay adequate attention to the
notice.</SPAN></FONT></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">2.<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=1><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><![endif]><SPAN lang=ES>Registrars must
ensure that these disclosures are set aside from other provisions of the
registration agreement if they are presented to registrants together with that
agreement. Alternatively, registrars may present data access disclosures
separate from the registration agreement. The wording of the notice provided
by registrars should, to the extent feasible, be
uniform.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<H2><B><I><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">The ISPCP constituency has no problem with either
alternative, and supports the necessity of some form of ‘highlighting” this
notice, in a way that ensures it cannot go unnoticed by the registrant. The
wording of the notice could perhaps be incorporated into the RAA to ensure
uniformity across all registrars. Although these recommendations are not
targetted to the subject of accuracy, perhaps the ‘enhanced’ notice to
registrants could simultaneously stress the need to supply accurate data to
the registrar? The collection of complete and accurate data, independently of
the debate on who will have access to it and how, is something the ISPCP
considers vital to the activities of it’s
constsituents.</SPAN></FONT></I></B></H2>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.25in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">3.<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=1><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT><![endif]><SPAN lang=ES>Registrars must
obtain a separate acknowledgement from registrars that they have read and
understand these disclosures. This provision does not affect registrars'
existing obligations to obtain registrant consent to the use of their contact
information in the WHOIS system.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><B><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-STYLE: italic">The ISPCP
supports this recommendation, assuming that the correct phrasing is
‘Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from registrants’ (the
above text reads <U>registrars</U> at both ends of the procedure). The
question that perhaps must be examined here is: what happens if the registrant
fails to acknowledge reading and understanding of the disclosure procedures?
Can he/she complete the registration template anyway? Which is the ‘default’
conclusion in the absence of registrant
compliance?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><B><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-STYLE: italic"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><B><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-STYLE: italic">As a final
comment, the ISPCP fully understands the concerns of the Registrar community
regarding possible cost factors in implementing the required changes as
proposed in the above recommendations. However, in view of the prolongued and
widespread debate over WHOIS and Personal Data, it would appear there is no
option other than to do something about improving notification, and it would
behoove the Registrars to evaluate the least-cost method for achieving
this.</SPAN></FONT></I></B><B><I><FONT face="@Arial Unicode MS" size=2><SPAN
lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: '@Arial Unicode MS'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-RIGHT: -0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2><SPAN lang=ES style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">IPC COMMENTS -
EXTRACT</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">For example, obtaining specific
consent on this issue from the registrant during the registration process,
separate from obtaining agreement to extensive terms and conditions for the
registration in general, should be encouraged. Similarly, some registrars
should be more specific and forthright in communicating to registrants about
the circumstances under which Whois data is available to third parties.
</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">" issue an advisory reminding
registrars of the importance of compliance with this contractual requirement,
even registrars operating primarily in countries in which local law apparently
does not require registrant consent to be obtained.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">IPC believes that registrars
should take the lead in developing best practices, with input from other
interested constituencies, that will improve the effectiveness of giving
notice to, and obtaining consent from, domain name registrants with regard to
uses of registrant contact data. IPC would be glad to participate in such an
effort. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Recommendation 1 states that
"[l]inking to an external web page is not sufficient" to provide the required
disclosure. It is unclear to us what an "external" (or "internal" for that
matter) web page is. Perhaps this sentence could be amended to read: "Linking
to a web page is not sufficient."</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Recommendation 2 states that
disclosures must be "set aside" from other provisions of the registration
agreement if the disclosure is presented as part of the agreement. It is
unclear what "set aside" means. Futhermore, Recommendation 2 allows as an
alternative that disclosures may be presented "separate from the registration
agreement." This might be viewed as inconsistent with the requirement in
Recommendation 1 that the disclosure be provided "during the registration
process." As such, Recommendation 2 could be amended as follows: "Such
disclosures must be displayed prominently and conspicuously prior to the
agreement being executed by the registrant, regardless of whether they appear
as a term of the agreement or separate from the agreement."</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">IPC also suggests that the
recommendations include notice to registrants of the consequences of providing
false or inaccurate Whois data during the registration process. The text of
such a notice could be similar to what registrars provide registrants pursuant
to the <A href="http://www.icann.org/registrars/wdrp.htm">Whois Data Reminder
Policy. </A></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Statement of the Noncommercial Users Constituency on
Whois Task Force<BR>1/2 Recommendation: Improving Notification and Consent for
the Use of<BR>Contact Data in the Whois Service<BR><BR>1. Constituency
position<BR>Noncommercial domain name users welcome efforts to ensure that
domain<BR>name registrants are better informed about the publication of
their<BR>private contact information via the Whois system. Public,
anonymous<BR>access to private contact information poses a number of risks
to<BR>registrants and may violate their rights to privacy. Until
this<BR>situation is reformed, conspicuous notification is
essential.<BR><BR>The text we reviewed contains an error. Under point 3, the
sentence<BR>"Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from registrars
that<BR>they have read and understand these disclosures" should
read<BR>"Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from
_registrants_<BR>that they have read and understand these
disclosures."<BR><BR>NCUC strongly supports the requirement to set aside the
notification<BR>and to require a distinct and separate acknowledgement from
registrants<BR>that they are aware of the exposure of their private
information. We<BR>observe, however, that for customers registering multiple
domain names<BR>in the same transaction, only one such acknowledgement should
be<BR>required. The constituency would like to make sure that the
same<BR>notification and acknowledgement should take place during
renewals.<BR><BR>We strongly support the statement "The wording of the notice
provided<BR>by registrars should, to the extent feasible, be uniform." Because
of<BR>the highly competitive nature of the registrar business,
registrars<BR>have<BR>an incentive to downplay or obscure the privacy
implications of<BR>registering a domain name because they fear it may deter
customers from<BR>signing up. The specific wording of the notification,
therefore, should<BR>not be left to the discretion of registrars. We suggest
that the wording<BR>be developed by staff subject to the approval of the GNSO
Council, and<BR>translated as literally as possible into different languages
by an<BR>independent party. This language should then be incorporated into
the<BR>Registrar Accreditation Agreement.<BR><BR>2. Method for Reaching
Agreement on NCUC position<BR><BR>NCUC's Chair drafted and circulated via
email a constituency statement<BR>on its discussion list, soliciting input
from its members. A minor<BR>addition to the draft, concerning renewals, was
suggested and agreed and<BR>incorporated into the constituency statement. All
comments were<BR>supportive except for one, which emphasized the additional
burden on<BR>registrants of the additional process.<BR><BR>3. Impact on
Constituency.<BR>While there is some recognition that the registration process
might be<BR>slightly more complicated as a result of the proposed change, all
member<BR>organizations but one considered the benefits of more
prominent<BR>notification and registrant awareness to outweigh any
burden.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Dr. Milton Mueller<BR>Syracuse University School of
Information Studies<BR><A
href="http://www.digital-convergence.org/">http://www.digital-convergence.org</A><BR><A
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/">http://www.internetgovernance.org</A><BR><BR><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:
TF1-2<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">CC:
gNSO
Council<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
BC List<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From: Marilyn Cade and David Fares,
for the BC<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Date: January 31,
2005<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">PROVISIONAL COMMENTS OF THE
BC:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The BC membership has reviewed the comments provided
and we are submitting these as the provisional comments, while we conclude the
validation of our membership. That will be completed shortly. We do not expect
changes to these comments, however. Thus, these comments can be taken as the
input of the BC.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The BC has several questions about the proposed
recommendation which are described below, along with some suggested
modifications; however, the BC fully supports the general intent of the draft
policy recommendation. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Suggested changes or requests for clarification are
noted below, embedded in a copy of the recommendation. Immediately following
our suggested changes are further comments and suggestions. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Suggested modifications to the
Proposed Policy: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">1. Registrars must ensure that notices regarding
availability and possible third-party access to personal data associated with
domain name registrations actually be presented to registrants during the
registration process in a manner that is easily visible and distinct to the
registrant. Linking to an external web page is not
sufficient.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">2. Registrars must ensure that these notices are set
aside from other provisions of the registration agreement if they are
presented to registrants together with that agreement. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Alternatively, registrars may present data
availability and data access notices separate from the registration agreement,
as long as the registration cannot be completed until there is acknowledgement
of the notice. The wording of the notice provided by registrars should
be uniform and based on guidance included in the consensus policy.
</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">3. Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement
from registrants that they have read and understand these notices. This
provision does not affect registrars' existing obligations to obtain
registrant consent to the use of their contact information in the WHOIS
system, </SPAN></FONT><FONT size=3><SPAN lang=ES style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">as a
registrant must permit such use before registration can
occur</SPAN></FONT><SPAN lang=ES>.</SPAN><FONT face="Courier New"><SPAN
lang=ES style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">General Input and Further Comments
of the BC<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The BC suggests that it is preferable to use the term
“notice”, since the use of disclosure makes it sound as though the registrars
are making the decision individually regarding the requirement to provide
accurate data and to have that data included in the WHOIS
database.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">In fact, the registrant is required by current policy
to provide accurate information and we believe that the purpose is to remind
the registrants of their obligations.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Secondly, we recommend the use of uniform and
consistent notices. We believe that the Registrars and the registrants are
best served by using a uniform and consistent notice. We are concerned that it
is possible to provide confusing notices regarding the obligation and wish to
prevent that, or to have this viewed as a way to achieve a competitive
advantage. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">It is the position of the BC that ensuring a fair and
level playing field in the areas of policy/contract compliance is best
supported by uniform and consistent notices; we also recommend that such
notices should be developed with guidance by the Council’s relevant TF, with
approval by Council, and drafted by the ICANN staff/legal counsel.
</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">We inserted the additional language to the last
sentence in #3 in order to clarify that “consent” should not suggest that this
is an option. Acceptance of this policy requirement is required before the
registration can continue, as specified by current consensus policy of ICANN.
</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Impact on BC members:
</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN lang=ES>The BC members are negatively impacted by
inaccurate registrant data, since they are reliant upon WHOIS data for a
number of uses, including policing their domain names, preventing fraud;
defending against harmful and confusing uses of their trademark names by
competitors, or for other negative purposes. They also heavily use WHOIS data
in cooperation with law enforcement when dealing with fraud, and other civil
legal issues, or in resolving and dealing with network problems. Thus accurate
data is extremely important to the BC membership. The BC also endorses the
need for registrants to be factually informed of their obligations. We
do not believe that entities, whether individuals or
organizations/corporations should be allowed to register domain names without
providing full and complete contact data that is kept accurate and up to
date.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Implementation:</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN
lang=ES> As to the length of time it will take to implement the policy, it
appears to us that the policy can be implemented expeditiously, once approved
by the TF, and then the Council and sent to the Board for approval. The
drafting of a standardized statement to be used for disclosure should be done
by the ICANN staff/legal counsel, with the input and agreement of the Council,
and should not be an onerous task, since there are many models of notice
statements in the commercial and non commercial online world. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">As a part of approving the consensus policy, the
Council could request from the registrars constituency preliminary advice on
how long it might take to enable a uniform posting throughout the registrar
community. Understandably, the registrars will want to have this change
supported by factual explanations that explain to the registrants in a
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">neutral</SPAN></B> manner, the need for the
change and the purpose of the change. However, it is the position of the BC
that ICANN should not exclude those who are impacted by such changes, e.g.
users/registrants as represented by the BC, ISPCP, IPC, Non Commercial
representatives, At Large, from participating in any consideration about the
development of a uniform posting notice, or any discussions about time frames.
</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Further Recommendations to the
TF</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN lang=ES>: </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Extension to
renewals:</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN lang=ES> Further, we strongly recommend that
this notice be required in any re-registration, or renewal of a registration.
It is likely that the TF has taken that for granted in its deliberations, but
we note it, in the event it has been overlooked.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Additional and related work of the
TF</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN lang=ES>: The TF is also examining “tiered access”
at this time, and as a separate work item from the above proposed policy
modification. In the view of the BC members, this TF should also be examining
the availability of services that meet the needs of any registrant with a
legitimate need for non display of data. This should include the availability
of “anonymizing services” provided either by the registrar or third parties
for a fee, and the soon to be available <B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">.<I><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic">post</SPAN></I></SPAN></B> which seems to provide
yet another solution for any registrant who needs to remain anonymous.
</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">In any event, the BC notes that its members fully
support the gathering of full identifying and contact data, and that all data
collected should be accurate, and that mechanisms to support the efficient and
effective correction of data should be a priority. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Timing of policy
changes:</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN lang=ES> However, since TF 3 is also
considering a related possible policy change, the BC recommends that other
policy changes related to WHOIS based on consensus policy be examined for
possible aggregation, if feasible, and practical. We exclude the work on
Tiered Access from this given its fledgling nature, but the work of the
present TF3 should be considered for possible implementation at the same time
as this policy change, should they both be accepted as consensus policy. Thus,
if there are a number of changes approved as consensus policy, they all be
made at one time, so that the registrars <B><I><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-STYLE: italic">and registrants</SPAN></I></B>
are not overburdened by multiple changes, introduced at different
times.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Better Information and Educational
resources by ICANN</SPAN></FONT></B><SPAN lang=ES>: Finally, the BC has from
time to time noted that it supports the importance of ICANN itself providing
easily available and distributed information about changes in policy.
</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A
href="mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@gnso.icann.org">owner-dow1-2tf@gnso.icann.org</A>
[mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@gnso.icann.org]<BR>On Behalf Of Thomas Keller<BR>Sent:
Monday, January 31, 2005 12:10 PM<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:dow1-2tf@gnso.icann.org">dow1-2tf@gnso.icann.org</A><BR>Subject:
[dow1-2tf] preliminary submission of the Registrar Constituency<BR><BR>Hello
all,<BR><BR>please find below the preliminary submission of the
Registrar<BR>Consituency in regard to the policy recommendations of Whois
<BR>TF 1-2 . Please keep in mind that this version is not the<BR>offical
statement of the Constituency until voted upon. The<BR>ballot for finalization
is just on its way.<BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR>tom<BR><BR># RC Preliminary Submission
---------------------------------------<BR><BR>Whereas, the GNSO Registrar
Constituency ("RC") has considered the<BR>proposed policy recommendations of
Whois Task Force 1/2 in their<BR>entirety;<BR><BR>Whereas, the RC believes
that the continued stability of the<BR>registration process depends on its
simplicity, straightforwardness, and<BR>transparency;<BR><BR>Whereas,
burdening this process with policy and consumer rights<BR>education notices
diminishes its simplicity, straightforwardness
and<BR>transparency;<BR><BR>Whereas, the RC believes that prescribing the
method of notification<BR>from registrants interferes with the simplicity of
this process,<BR>discourages desirable business innovations, and represents
entirely new<BR>obligations that would require many registrars to
completely<BR>re-establish their method of registration;<BR><BR>Whereas, the
RC appreciates and understands the concerns of the task<BR>force pertaining to
Recommendations #2 and #3, but does not agree with<BR>the costly and difficult
to implement proposal to require the specific<BR>highlighting of one provision
out of the many important provisions<BR>contained within the registration
agreement;<BR><BR>Whereas, the requirements in Recommendation #3 already are
mandated in<BR>the current Registrar Accreditation Agreement in sub-sections
3.7.7.4,<BR>3.7.7.5, and 3.7.7.6; and<BR><BR>Whereas, no data or evidence has
been presented that indicate that the<BR>requirements of the current RAA are
unsuitable or ineffective; and<BR>implementing a separate and additional
acknowledgement from registrants<BR>as proposed would be a costly and
cumbersome process that cannot be<BR>practically implemented in the current
environment.<BR><BR>Therefore, it is resolved that;<BR><BR>[Resolved 1.0]; the
Registrar Constituency does not support adopting<BR>Recommendation #1 as
consensus policy, but would support a<BR>recommendation in the following
form:<BR><BR>"Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding availability
and<BR>third-party access to personal data associated with domain
names<BR>actually be available to registrants during the registration
process;"<BR><BR>[Resolved 2.0]; the Registrar Constituency does not support
adopting<BR>Recommendation #2 as consensus policy, but encourages registrars
to<BR>increase such notification to registrants on a voluntary
basis;<BR><BR>[Resolved 3.0]; the Registrar Constituency does not support
adopting<BR>Recommendation #3 as a consensus policy, as it believes that the
current<BR>RAA requirements are sufficient, but encourages registrars to
increase<BR>such notification to registrants on a voluntary
basis;<BR><BR>[Resolved 4.0]; the foregoing positions of the Registrar
Constituency be<BR>reported to the Whois Task Force 1/2 and be included in any
Task Force<BR>report; and<BR><BR>[Resolved 4.1]; the Task Force members from
the Registrar Constituency<BR>represent the foregoing positions at Task Force
1/2.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN lang=ES
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>