[registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position

[Rob Hall]

Ross,

I have some questions about this, and I hope we are planning to have a
lively debate on this document before we vote on it.

I see that we are moving away from publishing the Registrant address
information.  Can you give me some of the background on why this is a good
idea, especially as I believe it is defined in the transfer policy as one of
the possible authoritative figures to allow a transfer.  

We also seem to be moving to the thin, distributed whois that .com has, when
all of the latest TLD's are moving in the opposite direction, to a
centralized whois.  Are we sure we want to go back to the old standard,
given the problems it has lent itself to ?  Should we not be moving more
towards the centralized, standardized version of whois that ICANN and many
other TLD's are moving towards ?  

>From what I also read, I think you are proposing to remove the expiry date
of the domain from all published records.  I see you have "creation date" in
both the Registry and Registrar records, but no mention of Expiry date.  I
know from our experience, that our customers very often want to see this
expiry date on their record, as it is really the key date they care about.
It is actually the only date that they have to do something on or by.  I am
concerned about our removing it from view.  Can you perhaps shed some light
on why you are suggesting this, or was it just an oversight ?

On the subject of handling of a report of inaccurate whois data, I think you
are suggesting that we only have to verify the email address for
correctness.  You also suggest that the Registrant must "defend" the
accuracy of the data in a timely manner.  What do you envision as this
defence ?  Is it simply enough to write back saying "yes it is correct" ?
Does the Registrar have any obligation to check the information provided,
other than the email address ?

And on part c) of the handling of innacurate data, you state that we MUST
put the name on hold if the Registrant does not update his information.  I
assume that you also mean that we would not have to put the name on hold if
the Registrant defended his information.  I think the way it is worded, we
would have to put the name on hold unless the Registrant provided new
information somehow, even though the existing might be correct.	

In part a) of the handling of inaccurate data, you state that the Registrar
must notify the operational contact OR Registered name holder.  I gather
this implies that you intend to keep contact information for the Registered
name holder, even though you no longer plan to display it.  Will this not
lead to the possibility of the invisible Registrant data being correct, but
the published operational data being incorrect, but still be OK within this
framework ?  What must the user correct, the unpublished data, the
operational data, or other published contacts, including any additional,
voluntary ones.

I know time may be short, but I think we need to have a frank an open
discussion on some of these points, as I know I have some concerns about
this being our official position.  Perhaps at the upcoming ICANN meetings
would be a good time.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to enlighten me on your thinking on
these matters.

Rob.

		

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:37 PM
To: registrars at dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position

Registrars;

Per Whois Task Force 123's Terms of Reference, we are required to adopt a
position concerning the purpose of the Whois service and the purpose of the
Registered Name Holder, Technical and Administrative contacts (see below for
an excerpt of the terms of reference for the task force).

As a representative to this task force and with the input and assistance of
the other representatives to this task force, I have prepared a policy
position that I seek to have adopted by the constituency. This position
statement is attached.

I therefore would like to make a motion as follows;

***MOTION
Whereas, the Registrar Constituency has considered a range of issues related
to the intended and appropriate purpose of the gTLD Whois System, and;

Whereas, the Registrar Constituency has considered a range of issues related
to the intended and appropriate purpose of the Registered Name Holder,
Administrative and Technical Contacts, and;

Whereas, the Registrar Constituency seeks timely resolution of these matters
in a consensus-based manner that takes into account the needs of all
stakeholders including individual and corporate domain name registrants, the
internetworking community and gTLD Registries and Registrars, therefore;

Be it resolved that the Registrar formally adopts the position statement
entitled "The Purpose of the gTLD Whois System and Specific Contact Records"
and require its task force representatives to advocate these positions
within the Task Force and other ICANN fora as appropriate.
***ENDofMOTION

I have attached both Word and PDF versions of this document to this message.
I will also be forwarding this draft document to the Task Force
  as a heads up concerning our deliberations.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Your support for this motion
would be sincerely appreciated.

-ross


Excerpt from WhoisTF123 Terms of Reference;
(1) ...the purpose of the WHOIS service in the context of ICANN's mission
and relevant core values, international and national laws protecting privacy
of natural persons, international and national laws that relate specifically
to the WHOIS service, and the changing nature of Registered Name Holders.

(2) ...the purpose of the Registered Name Holder, technical, and
administrative contacts, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS, and the
purpose for which the data was collected. Use the relevant definitions from
Exhibit C of the Transfers Task force report as a starting point (from
http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-exhc-12feb03.htm):

"Contact: Contacts are individuals or entities associated with domain name
records. Typically, third parties with specific inquiries or concerns will
use contact records to determine who should act upon specific issues related
to a domain name record. There are typically three of these contact types
associated with a domain name record, the Administrative contact, the
Billing contact and the Technical contact.

Contact, Administrative: The administrative contact is an individual, role
or organization authorized to interact with the Registry or Registrar on
behalf of the Domain Holder. The administrative contact should be able to
answer non-technical questions about the domain name's registration and the
Domain Holder. In all cases, the Administrative Contact is viewed as the
authoritative point of contact for the domain name, second only to the
Domain Holder.

Contact, Billing: The billing contact is the individual, role or
organization designated to receive the invoice for domain name registration
and re-registration fees.

Contact, Technical: The technical contact is the individual, role or
organization that is responsible for the technical operations of the
delegated zone. This contact likely maintains the domain name server(s) for
the domain. The technical contact should be able to answer technical
questions about the domain name, the delegated zone and work with
technically oriented people in other zones to solve technical problems that
affect the domain name and/or zone.

Domain Holder: The individual or organization that registers a specific
domain name. This individual or organization holds the right to use that
specific domain name for a specified period of time, provided certain
conditions are met and the registration fees are paid. This person or
organization is the "legal entity" bound by the terms of the relevant
service agreement with the Registry operator for the TLD in question."