Team, I do recommend you add in a statement about the importance of accurate,up to date, openly accessible WHOIS, and why, who uses it, what for in the statement about why the BC considers these features critical. Proxy services are not necessarily bad if properly managed, and if the data is verified and available in a reasonable manner.I personally have low support for proxy services, since website operations are holding yourself out to communicate with the public. Vast numbers of domains are reserved/parked, and many have proxied Whois. I have long wondered about requiring ICANN special accreditation for that service. Maybe it should be a contracted service... Would the present examination allow the examination of proxy services and practices, linkage to udrps, other complaints? Also, we shod keep a distinct focus as well on data studies, not just from ICANN, but also from LEAs, Knojon, MAGG, Anti-phishing wg..... Marilyn Cade/Sent from my iPad On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
ICANN is gathering responses to questions posed by the Whois review team.
Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper. (Steve DelBianco added a bit about Whois studies)
On our last member call, several others also volunteered to add to this response, so we're looking forward to your additions: Sara Deutsch Berry Cobb Lynn Goodendorf Janet O'Callaghan
ICANN's Comment period closes 17-Apr. Today (7-Apr) begins an 8-day review period for this discussion draft. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period.
Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 17-Apr, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN.
For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#whois-rt
Thanks again to Elisa Cooper for serving as BC Rapporteur on this.
Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination
<BC_on_WRT_v1.docx>