[registrars] Revised draft for TF2

[Rob Hall]

Thomas,

Can you tell me on what basis you say buk whois is 100% illegal in Europe ?

My understanding of your privacy laws is that you must inform the user of
how their information will be disseminated.  Is it not true that if you tell
the user that you will publish their information, and give it to whoever
applies under your bulk whois contract, that you are covered legally ?

You have informed the user of how their information is to be used, and
distributed. It is then the users choice to continue given that they now
know the playing field.

You also make a statement that seems to unlink whois and transfers.  But
they are in fact directly linked.

I also believe that one of the primary reasons we have a distributed whois
for com/net is to promote competition, not lessen it.  I am at a loss as to
how making whois information available to the public hurts competition.  I
believe just the opposite occurs.

I believe that if you unilaterally break your ICANN contract for any reason,
you should face enforement and penalties.  If a big european telco broke
their ICANN contract by not providing whois anymore, I suspect they would be
found in breach, and no longer have a contract.  Exactly as would any
non-european registrar who broke their contract.

Rob.


-----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 9:12 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