[registrars] Re: [dow3tf] Revised Best Practices-Related Recommendations

[Ross Wm. Rader]

I have undertaken both an edit of the IPC proposal and a merger of 
this proposal with a position more consistent with the registrar 
constituency's position on this issue. I would urge the other 
constituencies to further edit this version of the document to ensure 
that their positions are also taken into account.

A redlined MS-Word version of these changes is attached. A text 
version follows my comments below.

Background comments...

Re: Compliance. (old point #1)
- ICANN should expand its compliance activities to ensure that 
registars and other relevant parties meet their whois related 
obligations. This shouldn't be a separate or new effort, but something 
that should be undertaken in the context of other activities. I have 
modified the IPC proposal to take this into account.

Re: Development of best practices. (old point #2)
- The registrar constituency concurs with recommending that the GNSO 
undertake an effort to further document best practices in this area. I 
do not believe that we should be making specific recommendations 
regarding who and how and should leave the GNSO Council sufficient 
leeway to pursue this objective in any manner it deems appropriate. I 
have modified Brian's proposal accordingly.

Re: Identifying verification mechanisms. (old point #3)
- I have substantially modified this passage to ensure that registrars 
have the freedom necessary to implement useful mechanisms in any 
manner they deem appropriate. As I stressed on the call this morning, 
requiring processes that *must* be automated or must be *manual* has a 
distinct and undesirable impact on registrar and registry operations 
that can be avoided by not including specific implementation details 
in the policy recommendations. All language regarding specific 
implementation types, protocols and technologies has been removed from 
the IPC document and replaced with a requirements driven alternative 
that provides for roughly the same outcome.

Re: additional Whois data elements. (old point #1 - repeated, should 
be #4)
- I have completely removed this point. Recommending additional whois 
data elements is specifically out of scope for consideration by this 
task force. As I mentioned this morning, I would support this 
recommendation being referred to the appropriate task force in a 
formal communique from our chairman.

Re: Development of compliance plans. (old point #3)
- As I mentioned this morning, requiring registrars to develop a plan 
that outlines how they expect to become compliant with an agreement 
that they should already be compliant with is an inappropriate 
recommendation. Accordingly, I have stricken this proposal entirely.

Re: contract modifications. (old point #7)
- I have modified this recommendation to reflect prior contractual 
implementation analysis work done by ICANN pursuant to the development 
of consensus policy development. Typically, relevant issues are 
identified by an Implementation Committee who works with the ICANN 
staff to ensure that the recommendations of the GNSO are implementable 
and meaningful from a contractual perspective.

Re: recommendations to undertake ongoing work (old point #12)
- It is appropriate for this task force to recommend further 
examination of the salient issues, but it is inappropriate for the 
recommendation to be limited solely to being a policy development 
process. Further work could include the creation of a President's 
Working Group, a study committee, an analysis by a third party 
consultant or possibly, initiation of the policy development process. 
I do not believe that we are looking to specifically recommend further 
policy development prior to the identification of the relevant issues. 
I have expanded the scope of the IPC proposal accordingly.

I am available to answer questions at the convenience of the Task Force.

-rwr

]

Text version without redline follows:

Best Practices

The surveys conducted by Task Force 3 did not result in any meaningful 
level of response that could serve as a basis for assessing best 
practices for improving data accuracy and verification.  Nevertheless, 
the Task Force compiled a list of preliminary recommendations as set 
forth below.

1) ICANN should continue to develop its ongoing compliance program and 
ensure that contractual parties are meeting the WHOIS-related 
provisions of the present agreements, and should devote adequate 
resources to such a compliance program. Specific attention should be 
paid to;

a)    the resources assigned to managing this plan;
b)    the specific elements of compliance that the internet community 
is primarily concerned with;
c)    development and implementation of a graduated scale of sanctions 
that can be applied against those who are not in compliance with their 
obligations or otherwise infringing the contracted rights under these 
agreements;
d)    Measurement and reporting mechanisms that allow appropriate 
analysis of the effectiveness of this ongoing program with specific 
attention paid initially to existing compliance assista	nce mechanisms 
such as ICANN's online Whois data inaccuracy reporting tools ;
e)    Continued outreach to and education of affected stakeholders to 
ensure that existing requirements and obligations are understood and 
met and that new requirements are captured and appropriately dealt 
with. This effort should ensure that ICANN advisories related to this 
issue  are specifically brought to the attention of newly accredited 
Registrars and that resources be made available to the Registrar 
community to ensure that the impact and scope of these obligations are 
apparent and understood. Similar resources should be made available to 
new Registrants and brought to their attention via the registration 
agreement that all Registrants must agree to prior to the activation 
of their gTLD registration ;
f)    Ongoing development and promotion of gTLD Registry, Registrar 
and Registrant best practices that foster the accuracy of the 
Registrant data contained in the Whois database

2) Best practices and technologies that are viewed as being mechanisms 
for improving the accuracy of Whois data should be documented by ICANN 
and disseminated to accredited registrars and other relevant parties 
as part of ICANN's ongoing educational and compliance initiatives.

3)   Specific examination of Registrar data collection and protection 
practices be undertaken by the GNSO Council (or another appropriate 
body) in order that the GNSO community has sufficient and appropriate 
appreciation of the policy implications of the various data protection 
regulations in effect in the various jurisdictions that Registrars 
operate. .









-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TF3-Best Practices2-rev.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 61440 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20040428/122c2db1/TF3-BestPractices2-rev.doc>