[registrars] [Fwd: [rc-excom] Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft final report Whois group v 1.5]

Thu Jul 19 12:43:42 UTC 2007

Here is a copy of my comments to the chair of the WG. My view is that 
this WG has been hijacked by IP interests and Philip is a willing 
accomplice.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [rc-excom] Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft final report Whois group v 1.5
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:40:04 -0400
From: Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com>
Reply-To: rc-excom at googlegroups.com
Organization: Tucows Inc.
To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard at aim.be>
CC: 'gnso-whois-wg' <gnso-whois-wg at icann.org>,  rc-excom at googlegroups.com
References: <469F0B7D.9020700 at gnso.icann.org> 
<001201c7c9f8$a390b2b0$e601a8c0 at PSEVO>

I will post separately concerning divergence from the AGREE/SUPPORT, etc...

Comments on this draft:

a) Lines 143 - 145
Unless Margie represents multiple registrars, I do not believe that the
WG has heard that multiple registrars support verification at the time
of registration. I continue to maintain that this is not only a
burdensome requirement, but will completely change the entire function
of the domain name registration system by moving it from a real-time
system to a non-realtime system as verifications cannot be conducted in
a realtime manner. I cannot stress enough the expense and inconvenience
that this will impose on registrants and registrars.

b) Line 156
I have made this point in the past and the WG has agreed to this view
that the OPOC is not an agent of the registrant. If the OPOC is an agent
of the registrant, then agency law can be used and we do not need to
implement this complex and onerous verification system.

c) Line 165 - 167
See comment a) above.

d) Line 176 - 196
There is a flaw in the logic here. ICANN staff opinion is that the proxy
is the registered name holder. Therefore, the RNH, in all cases in
ICANN's view, is the contractee with the registrant and is required to
abide by all relevant contracts and policy. This includes abiding by
national law, etc. If this party chooses to designate an OPOC, these
responsibilities do not go away. Furthermore, there is nothing prevent a
registrant, reseller or some other third party to enter into a proxy
relationship with a registrant and avoid the implications of the policy
proposed in this section. Therefore requiring that the proxy and the
OPOC be one and the same is an illogical requirement that cannot be
practically implemented.

e) Line 202
Again, see comment a).

f) Line 205
My support for merging the contacts is not conditional upon these terms.
This should be captured in the report along the lines of "Some support
for merging is conditional, etc....whereas others unconditionally
support this simplification as being generally beneficial to operators
and registrants."

g) Line 208
No functional distinction has been demonstrated in this WG. At best
there is a possibility of this, but given that no formal, legal or
remotely official description of the responsibilities of the technical
contact exists, it is not possible to state that there is a functional
distinction between the responsibilities of the two without knowing more
specifics. This line should be removed or made more clear.

h) Line 210
Data collect is squarely out of scope for this WG. Please strike the
reference to data collection.

i) Line 218
Again, please remove all references to data collection, this is out of
scope for this group.

j) Line 262 - 268
This definition is essentially unbounded and mostly outside the scope of
ICANN's policy making activities. This can be remedied by removing all
non-registration or DNS-related applications of a domain name. i.e
"wrongful activity of a registrant" should be bounded. "phishing,
pharming" are both non-registration/DNS related. These terms should also
be qualified more clearly. Pharming, phishing and cybersquatting are all
colloquial terms with no strong definition. Substitutions should be made
for these words to make it clearer what the definition intends to deal
with (i.e. I'm guessing that everything related to cybersquatting is
already picked up by trademark and copyright infringements and could
therefore simply be removed).

k) Line 337
See comment b)

l) Line 341  - 345
This pollicy proposal deals with issues outside of the scope of the GNSO
and ICANN and should be wholly removed from this report.

m) Line 352
There are no requirements for a Requestor to demonstrate the failure of
the OPOC to perform their responsibilities. If this is to be
implementable, there must be a strong burden of proof on the requestor
to demonstrate the nature of the failure.

n) Line 363
Again, out of scope, please strike.

o) Line 364
Again, out of scope, please strike.

p) Line 446
The parentheses are inaccurate and should probably just be removed.
There are many means for accessing whois data, most notably port 43,
that are not captured here. It would be more accurate to simply state
"Whois access should continue in its present form, etc...."

q) Line 449
I am not sure where this proposal comes from, but I don't support this
proposal unless there are cost recovery means in place to support its
implementation. i.e. if this is a chargeable service, then I don't have
an issue with creating and implementing it. If there is an expectation
that this will be a free service, I can not agree to it in any way.

r) Line 460
See comment q)

s) Line 472
Bulk access is not provided via Port 43. I am not sure what this
proposal is recommending. Also, see comment q) in the event that this is
a new mechanism being proposed.

t) Line 491-493
These terms are also unbounded. These criteria should be limited to
terms recognized under international law or other means that can be
objectively applied. Furthermore, they should be brought back into
territory where ICANN can actually make policy and be limited to DNS and
registration of the domain name.

u) Line 524
Self-declaration is not sufficient means, especially when open to all
private actors. In these cases, we must rely on either a) due process or
b) arrangement with the registrar, unless ICANN is willing to assume the
liability that comes with disclosing this data in such an ad hoc manner
as described in this recommendation.

v) Line 100 (sorry to jump around, I missed this the first time)
Cost implications must be made addressable through market means. It is
not simply sufficient to impose a cost on registrars or registrants
simply because of some claimed benefit. If there is a benefit to the
implementation, then there is value in it, and registrars must be free
to recoup their investment, plus profit, through market based pricing of
these services.

Philip Sheppard wrote:
> WHOIS working group members,
> 
> I attach version 1.5 of our draft report.
> I hope we have more or less completed productive discussion on the key issues.
> If there are additional areas where you would still like to make input please do so not by
> expressing opinion or hope (we've done that!)  but by proposing methods that are practical,
> cost effective and capable of implementation.
> 
> The final version of the report will have several additions made by staff to bring it into
> line with standard format such as references back to the group charter, record of
> discussions, etc. But to make our life in this large group as simple as possible the current
> format should be easier to follow with respect to its policy recommendations.
> 
> What we need to hear now are any divergences to the agreed, supported or alternate views
> outlined in the draft.
> Please do this NOT by use of the tracking function in Word but by e-mail and reference to
> the line number in the report.
> (Multiple author word tracking is almost impossible to edit and messes up the line numbering
> function so making discussion on any new points troublesome.)
> 
> Lets structure this in two parts.
> Part 1 :
> - Sections 1 - 4 
> Input now and the teleconference of 25 July
> 
> Part 2:
> - Sections 5 to the end
> Input from 25 July and the teleconference of 1 August.
> 
> Philip
> Chairman
> 

-- 
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be re-transmitted without the permission of the 
Executive Committee
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Registrar Constituency Executive Committee" group.
To post to this group, send email to rc-excom at googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rc-excom-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rc-excom?hl=en
"The world is proof that God is a committee."  - Bob Stokes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

-- 
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492