[registrars] Revised draft for TF2

[Tim Ruiz]

Tom,

The new draft contains the statement:

"The widely supported conclusion the Registrars arrived to during the course
of the discussion is that since all arguments might be valid, depending on
the viewpoint, a balance has to be found."

That *may* be true. But leaving it at that sounds as if the rest of the
conclusions/proposals made in the document are *widely* supported by the
Registrars. That certainly is NOT known to be true.

The handful of members who have responded here, even if you consider them
all in support, do not appear to me to be representative of *wide* support.
And Go Daddy for one is not in support of all aspects of this statement.

This statement must not appear to represent any kind of consensus view,
direct or implied, unless it actually does. All it is, is a document that
represents *A* view that *SOME* Registrars support.

Unless you are going to attach some specific definition to the concept of
*wide support* it should not be used in the context of this document. I
suggest:

"A conclusion some of the Registrars arrived to during the course of the
discussion is that since all arguments might be valid, depending on the
viewpoint, a balance has to be found."

It would also be appropriate to make specific mention that this does not
represent a consensus view as it has not yet been formally put to a vote.

Tim




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:12 AM
To: registrars at dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Revised draft for TF2

Hello,

the discussion of the last days has been exceptional usefull and
helped me to revise my first draft (attached). Beside referring 
to the changes I made in the document I would like to explain some 
of my thoughts behind certain passages in the draft. Lets start with 
the changes:

1. Pauls data fields were incorporated
2. The Tech-C data fields where changed to a Tech-C Point of Contact
   field as suggested by Tom Barrett and Paul
3. The possibility to display additional data as requested by Elana
   has been incorporated
4. A reference to the original use of WHOIS as requested by Brian has
   been incorporated
5. Wording has been changed to reflect that we haven't voted on this
   matter. This was requested by Tim (just a tiny change)
6. Three Whois levels have been cut down to two due to the request of
   Jean-Michel

The only two debated issuess I didn't change is the request to strike
the Bulkwhois obligation and the general statement about national
legislations and whois. Please let me explain my reasons for not changing
it. 

Bulkwhois

This one is rather simple. Bulkwhois is 100% illegal in Europe and
I'm pretty sure that this holds true for most  other countries with
privacy regulations. I can't imagine one company in Germany entering
in such a agreement. Therefore to still be able to provide a leveled 
playing field this generally unloved obligation must go.

National legislations and whois

I totally understand the concerns some might have but I would like to 
ask them to consider two points:

1. Is it really likely that such a provision  will effect competition
   in a negative way if all necessary data for competition must be made
   available? Please keep in mind that we only talk about whois
   information and not about countries passing laws prohibiting
   transfers. This would indeed be, even if highly unlikely, a problem.

2. Would such a provision not only be an acknowledgement of the existing
   cirumstances. Being realistic one must admit that we already
   have the situation where a company y in a country x could decide to shut
   down whois if their local legislation demands it without having to
   fear any kind of penalties by ICANN. I guess it would be a very
   interesting showcase to see ICANN argueing with EU officals and lawyers
   why i.e. a big european telco is not providing whois anymore.

Thats it for the moment.

Best

tom

--

Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Brauerstrasse 48         		Tel. +49-721-91374-534
76135 Karlsruhe, Germany               	Fax  +49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                  	tom at schlund.de