- ispcp - lists.icann.org

RE: [ispcp] Whois Task Force 2 Survey for GNSO Constituency Members
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Feb. 16, 2004

Feb. 16, 2004

Mark Seems a good approach. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mark McFadden Sent: 16 February 2004 16:02 To: Maggie.Mansourkia(a)mci.com; 'Mark McFadden'; ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [ispcp] Whois Task Force 2 Survey for GNSO Constituency Members How about a scenario where I send this out at 1600 my time (1700 Maggie's time and 2200 GMT)? Mark Mark McFadden Secretariat - Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency gNSO - ICANN mcf(a)uwm.edu -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maggie Mansourkia Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:46 AM To: 'Mark McFadden'; ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [ispcp] Whois Task Force 2 Survey for GNSO Constituency Members Importance: High Attached are my suggested answers to the Whois TF 2 survey. Any edits are welcome, but please note that Mark will need to forward these asap as they are due TODAY. Thanks, Maggie -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Mark McFadden Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 6:05 AM To: ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: [ispcp] Whois Task Force 2 Survey for GNSO Constituency Members The GNSO's WHOIS Task Force #2 is chartered with reviewing the current ICANN whois policy regarding the collection, disclosure and transmittal of data. One of the milestones of this Task Force is to determine whether the data which is collected and disclosed at present should be changed. To be able to arrive at a informed decision we are asking all GNSO Constituencies for guidance on their use of the current data fields. Responses from constituencies are requested no later than February 16, 2003. Please send your reply to tf2-survey(a)gnso.icann.org. You can find a short listing of these fields at the end of this document. Please note that this is a complete list; not every registry makes every data item listed available. A more extensive list may be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/pdf00001.pdf Specifically, we are requesting your feedback on the following questions: 1. For each existing data field within the Whois, please provide feedback to the task force regarding the following: a) Use How do members of your constituency make use of the data? b) Necessity Is it necessary that this information be made available to members of your constituency? If so, why? c) Concerns Describe any concenrs your constituency may have with making this information available. 2. If there are fields not presently available within Whois that would be of use to members of your constituency, please suggest what those fields may be. For each suggestion, provide feedback regarding the following: a) Use How would members of your constituency make use of the data? b) Necessity Is it necessary that this information be made available to members of your constituency? If so, why? 3. Please comment on any mechanisms that you are aware of to allow anonymous domain registrations, or to limit the amount of contact data made publicly available through Whois? Please also comment on the conditions under which the registrant's anonymity is lifted when these services are used. Responses from constituencies are requested no later than February 16, 2003. Although these questions have been distributed to each of the GNSO constituencies, the task force would be glad to receive responses from any individuals or organizations that have a knowledge or interest regarding this matter. Responses that are not made on behalf of a constituency should include an indication of the author's affiliation and interest in Whois privacy. All responses to this questionnaire will be archived and made public, although e-mail addresses will be obfuscated in order to limit spam. Whois Data Fields: General Information - Domain Status - Domain Name ID - Domain Name - Registrar ID* - Name of Registrar - Name Server(s) - Name Server ID* - Creation Date - Expiration Date - Updated Date - WHOIS Server* - Referral URL - Created by* - Last Updated by* - Last Transferred Date - Last Transferred by** Registrant - ID - Name - Address - E-Mail address - Phone number - Fax number Technical Contact - ID - Name - Address - E-Mail address - Phone number - Fax number Administrative Contact - ID - Name - Address - E-Mail address - Phone number - Fax number Billing Contact - ID - Name - Address - E-Mail address - Phone number - Fax number ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

Whois Task Force 2 Survey for GNSO Constituency Members
by Mark McFadden Feb. 16, 2004

Feb. 16, 2004

The GNSO's WHOIS Task Force #2 is chartered with reviewing the current ICANN whois policy regarding the collection, disclosure and transmittal of data. One of the milestones of this Task Force is to determine whether the data which is collected and disclosed at present should be changed. To be able to arrive at a informed decision we are asking all GNSO Constituencies for guidance on their use of the current data fields. Responses from constituencies are requested no later than February 16, 2003. Please send your reply to tf2-survey(a)gnso.icann.org. You can find a short listing of these fields at the end of this document. Please note that this is a complete list; not every registry makes every data item listed available. A more extensive list may be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/pdf00001.pdf Specifically, we are requesting your feedback on the following questions: 1. For each existing data field within the Whois, please provide feedback to the task force regarding the following: a) Use How do members of your constituency make use of the data? b) Necessity Is it necessary that this information be made available to members of your constituency? If so, why? c) Concerns Describe any concenrs your constituency may have with making this information available. 2. If there are fields not presently available within Whois that would be of use to members of your constituency, please suggest what those fields may be. For each suggestion, provide feedback regarding the following: a) Use How would members of your constituency make use of the data? b) Necessity Is it necessary that this information be made available to members of your constituency? If so, why? 3. Please comment on any mechanisms that you are aware of to allow anonymous domain registrations, or to limit the amount of contact data made publicly available through Whois? Please also comment on the conditions under which the registrant's anonymity is lifted when these services are used. Responses from constituencies are requested no later than February 16, 2003. Although these questions have been distributed to each of the GNSO constituencies, the task force would be glad to receive responses from any individuals or organizations that have a knowledge or interest regarding this matter. Responses that are not made on behalf of a constituency should include an indication of the author's affiliation and interest in Whois privacy. All responses to this questionnaire will be archived and made public, although e-mail addresses will be obfuscated in order to limit spam. Whois Data Fields: General Information - Domain Status - Domain Name ID - Domain Name - Registrar ID* - Name of Registrar - Name Server(s) - Name Server ID* - Creation Date - Expiration Date - Updated Date - WHOIS Server* - Referral URL - Created by* - Last Updated by* - Last Transferred Date - Last Transferred by** Registrant - ID - Name - Address - E-Mail address - Phone number - Fax number Technical Contact - ID - Name - Address - E-Mail address - Phone number - Fax number Administrative Contact - ID - Name - Address - E-Mail address - Phone number - Fax number Billing Contact - ID - Name - Address - E-Mail address - Phone number - Fax number ----- End forwarded message -----

4 3

FW: [liaison6c] Whois task force 1 survey - Your need for Whois information-for distribution
by Mark McFadden Feb. 11, 2004

Feb. 11, 2004

-----Original Message----- From: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO SECRETARIAT Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 4:45 AM To: liaison6c Subject: [liaison6c] Whois task force 1 survey - Your need for Whois information-for distribution [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] The Chair and members of the Whois task force 1 would appreciate the help of each constituency in distributing the survey questionnaire as widely as possible to non-marketing users of Whois data, and where feasible through a personal contact to ensure optimal data gathering. Please send your reply to: <mailto:tf1-survey@gnso.icann.org>tf1-survey(a)gnso.icann.org. Thank you for your time and participation. GNSO Secretariat Please find the Whois task force 1 survey questionnaire in the link below: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/questionnaire-tf1-06feb04.shtml or in the plain text version: From: ICANN Whois Taskforce 1 Re: Your need for Whois information To: [ ] Dear [ ], Because Whois data accessibility used in your business or activities could be affected by our recommendations, we encourage you to take a few moments to answer the questions below. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Your submissions will not be shared beyond the members of this task force. This letter comes to you on behalf of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic and country code Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. The GNSOs role is to help to promote the development of gTLD domain name-related policy and encourage diverse and international participation in the technical management of the Internet. We are members of a Task Force that has been appointed by the GNSO to examine the uses of Whois information obtained through two very specific sources. Under contractual agreements with ICANN, top-level domain registries and registrars are required to provide access to Whois data through Port 43as well as through the Web. To help the task force develop policy recommendations about access to Whois data, we are gathering information from organizations such as yours that we understand are using or have used Whois information for various purposes. Please note that all questions pertain only to whois information which is the name, email, street address, phone and other information about the registrant, and the other contacts, of the domain name), and not to zone file information which is the list of all domain names (with each names name servers) registered at the registry. In addition, for each question except for the last one, please feel free to select more than one answer to each question, if more than one answer is applicable. In order to ensure that your responses are considered by the Task Force, please respond to this questionnaire by no later than February 16, 2004. Please send your reply to <mailto:tf1-survey@gnso.icann.org>tf1-survey(a)gnso.icann.org. Questions 1) ICANN-Accredited Registrars and gTLD Registries make Whois information available through multiple query-based mechanisms, including web-based interfaces and a special network protocol informally referred to as port-43 Whois. How do you obtain the Whois information? a. By submitting queries to a Web-based interface b. By submitting queries using special tools, e.g., using port-43-based interface c. By entering into bulk access licenses with ICANN- accredited registrars. d. By obtaining WHOIS data in bulk from an entity that is not an ICANN-Accredited Registrar. Please specify the type of entity. e. Other (Please explain) f. I don't know. 2) Are you getting this information directly from an ICANN-Accredited Registrar [Provide a link] or gTLD Registry [Provide a link]? a. Yes b. No. c. I don't know 3) Do you routinely disseminate the obtained Whois information to third parties (Yes/No/dont know)? 3.1) If yes, do you disseminate: 3.2) a. individual WHOIS records b. WHOIS records in bulk c. Other (please explain) d. Dont know 3.2) If you answered yes to Number 3, how do you disseminate the obtained Whois information? a) I operate a WHOIS proxy that is available through port 43 b) I operate a WHOIS proxy that is accessible through a web interface c) Other (please specify) d) Dont know 4) Approximately how many Whois queries/lookups do you perform on average per day? a. Less than 10 b. 10-99 c. 100-1000 d. More than 1000 e. It varies too much to select the other options: some days it is many (say, over 1000) and some days none f. I don't know 5) Do you store the Whois information? a. Not at all b. I cache queries for a short period (less than a week) c. I store it for longer periods such as more than a week 6) Please indicate the general purposes of your use of Whois data (you may select more than one item - choose as many that apply) a. For law enforcement by public authorities b. For intellectual property enforcement by trademark/copyright holders or their designated representatives c. For development of commercial products or services that facilitate law enforcement by public authorities. d. For development of commercial products or services that facilitate intellectual property enforcement e. For marketing purposes f. For inter-registrar domain name transfers g. To facilitate spam prevention h. To operate a public information service i. Statistical research on domain name registrations, Internet users, etc. j. For resale of Whois information as an information service k. Other: ___________________________________ 7) Please provide a brief explanation of your use, if any, of query-based Whois services. 8) If you currently use Port 43 to access WHOIS information, and such access were not available in the future, what other source(s) would you use for such data? 9) If you were to use such alternate source(s), what do you believe will be the effect on you or your organization? 10) What is the most important factor driving your access to Whois data as you currently use it? your access to WHOIS data. (Although each answer may be applicable to you or your organization, please select only the most relevant answer below): a) the cost b) the convenience or need for immediate online access to contact information c) other Please explain your answer. Please take a moment to tell us a little about your organization to assist us in understanding and organizing the results. In order to ensure that your responses are considered by the Task Force, please respond to this questionnaire by no later than February 16, 2004. Please send your reply to tf1-survey(a)gnso.icann.org: Thank you very much for your time and participation. For our complete description of work, please see <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor.shtml>http://gnso.icann.org/ issues/whois-privacy/tor.shtml.

1 0

SECRETARIAT: Official ISPCP Election Results
by Mark McFadden Feb. 4, 2004

Feb. 4, 2004

===================================================================== ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency Group Domain Name Supporting Organization - ICANN ===================================================================== GNSO ISPCP REPRESENTATIVES - ELECTION RESULTS 17 November 2003 In the last four weeks the ISPCP Secretariat has put out a call for nominations, confirmed those nominations, and held an election for the new GNSO Council. As a constituency we had three positions to fill. It gives the Secretariat great pleasure to announce the results of that election. The elected representatives of the ISPCP Constituency are: Tony Holmes (British Telecom) -- 2 year slot Tony Harris (CABASE) -- 1 year slot Greg Ruth (Verizon) -- 1 year slot With this message the Secretariat is also officially noticing the GNSO Council of this result in accordance with the GNSO Bylaws: www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm Please join me in welcoming the election and service of these representatives of our constituency. If you have questions relating to the election, the constituency Articles or the election process please contact the Secretariat of the constituency: Mark McFadden at ispcp-activities(a)mcfaddencentral.com. =====================================================================

2 1

RE: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Jan. 31, 2004

Jan. 31, 2004

Maggie Thanks - no problem at all with your proposed changes. I suggest we now leave the comment period open until end of Wednesday 4th Feb and if no additional comments are received, ask Mark to pass it to the GNSO Secretariat and post on our web site. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: Maggie Mansourkia [mailto:Maggie.Mansourkia@mci.com] Sent: 30 January 2004 20:56 To: Holmes,AR,Tony,XGH3 HOLMESAR R; ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services Tony and all- I'm sorry my schedule conflict did not allow me to stay on the call long enough to discuss the registry services issue. I think the draft response is well done and some of my edits clarify and underscore the points previously made. However, I draw everyone's attention to the very last sentence under the "quick look" section, b/c the MCI position goes beyond the previous statement of concern. I share the recommendations raised in Tony's draft and don't see quick look as a pragmatic solution until they are addressed. I'm happy to discuss if others disagree. Thanks and have a good weekend. Maggie -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tony.ar.holmes(a)bt.com Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:28 AM To: ispcp(a)icann.org Subject: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services Attached is a revised draft ISPCP statement on Registry Services. The change reflects the debate on the Registry PDP that took place during the last GNSO call. The Business Constituency had proposed changes to the ToRs for the Registry Services PDP. As a Consituency the ISPCP have yet to discuss that particular issue, however we did offer support for a proposal that came from the GNSO Chair. It was proposed that any significant issues identified during the process should be logged and considered later. The proposed text addresses that point. I suggest we consider this during this evenings call. For those who cannot make the call, pleases submit comments by mail before the end of this week. Regards Tony

1 0

Revised statement on Registry Services
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Jan. 30, 2004

Jan. 30, 2004

Attached is a revised draft ISPCP statement on Registry Services. The change reflects the debate on the Registry PDP that took place during the last GNSO call. The Business Constituency had proposed changes to the ToRs for the Registry Services PDP. As a Consituency the ISPCP have yet to discuss that particular issue, however we did offer support for a proposal that came from the GNSO Chair. It was proposed that any significant issues identified during the process should be logged and considered later. The proposed text addresses that point. I suggest we consider this during this evenings call. For those who cannot make the call, pleases submit comments by mail before the end of this week. Regards Tony

2 1

Conference call arrangements - 27 January
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Jan. 22, 2004

Jan. 22, 2004

Dear ISPCP member A conference call will be held on Tuesday 27 January commencing at 18.00 CET (17.00 GMT, 12.00 EST). The aim is to provide an update on issues within the ICANN Task Force, the GNSO, and prepare for the ICANN meeting in Rome. The call in details are as follows. Dial in number: +44 1473 782106 PIN: 349951# Duration 1.5 hours max Please advise me if you plan to participate (no response means unable to join the call). Regards Tony

1 0

[SECRETARIAT] Proposed response on PDP relating to changed procedures at registries
by Mark McFadden Jan. 21, 2004

Jan. 21, 2004

All: Attached [ in pdf and doc formats ] is a proposed response to the staff manager on the gNSO policy development process relating to changes in registry procedures. The constituency executive has apporved this draft for review by the members of the constituency. Any comments should be directed to the discussion list. Thanks, mark Mark McFadden ISPCP - Secretariat ispcp-activity(a)21st-century-texts.com

1 0

SECRETARIAT: Proposal for Election by Acclamation
by Mark McFadden Nov. 12, 2003

Nov. 12, 2003

===================================================================== ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency Group Domain Name Supporting Organization - ICANN ===================================================================== GNSO ISPCP REPRESENTATIVES - PROPOSAL FOR ELECTION BY ACCLAMATION 11 November 2003 In the last two weeks the ISPCP Secretariat has put out a call for nominations for the new GNSO Council. As a constituency we have three positions to fill. Of the three representatives, - one must be identified for a 2 year term - two will serve a one year term (until end of annual meeting in 2004) Three people from the Constituency have been nominated and each has confirmed his interest in serving the constituency in this role. The nominees are: Tony Holmes (British Telecom) Tony Harris (CABASE) Greg Ruth (Verizon) The Secretariat would like to propose that we elect this slate of nominees, effective 15 November 2003, by general acclamation of the constituency. The Secretariat further proposes that Mr Tony Holmes fill the slot identified for a 2 year term. Our constituency has used this process before when the number of nominees exactly matches the number of positions being filled. Objections to this proposal must be presented to the Secretariat by Friday, 15 November 2003. Any objection received by the Secretariat will result in the Secretariat executing a traditional voting election within the Constituency. This mail requests that you either support the slate of nominated candidates for the GNSO Council or raise an objection. The will announce the results of the Constituency vote on this proposal at 2200 GMT, 15 November 2003. Objections should be sent to the constituency mailing list or to ispcp-activities(a)mcfaddencentral.com. If you have questions relating to the election, the constituency Articles or the election process please contact the Secretariat of the constituency: Mark McFadden at ispcp-activities(a)mcfaddencentral.com. =====================================================================

2 1

ISPCP Statement on Issues Report for Proposed Registry Services
by Mark McFadden Nov. 11, 2003

Nov. 11, 2003

Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry Services Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency The ISPCP Constituency has a direct connection with a significant body of Internet stakeholders. Our customers - those people connected to the Internet - are the people and organizations most affected by unexpected changes in the Internet. This includes the introduction of new or modified registry services. Naturally, the ISPCP constituency needs to be a significant contributor to the Registry Services PDP process. ISPs are in a unique position to help guide policy development on new registry services. As those who have been largely responsible for the stability of the Internet, we believe that it is vitally important that the GNSO and its Council balance the need to move quickly on potential registry services while carefully thinking through operational and legal impacts of any recommendations. Our constituency actively supports the principle of maintaining the stability that the Internet has always enjoyed. Specifically, we believe that there is a requirement for technical, security and stability reviews for any newly proposed registry service. In addition, we believe that any significant change to registry services - that significantly changes or alters fundamental functions of DNS related services - should also be subject to an explicit, public, and extensive security, stability and technical review. No other group in the GNSO is as well positioned as the ISPCP to coordinate the technical evaluation of the protocol and operational impacts of a proposed change to registry services. Our constituency works daily with both the protocol standards that make the DNS work and is fully aware of the operational issues that are not part of the protocols, but which are embedded in the operational behavior of Internet protocols and services. Fundamentally, our constituency believes that: " No new registry service should be introduced without an explicit, public evaluation of its technical, stability and security implications; " No significant changes to registry services should take place that have the potential to significantly change the behaviour of underlying Internet services; " The ISPCP constituency should be a central contributor to any discussion of the technical implications of the introduction of new registry services; " All constituencies should be bound by the "principle of least astonishment" in the development of new services that affect the foundation protocols of the Internet; and, " All participants in GNSO constituencies should be bound by principles of operational security and stability for the Internet's user community. The ISP community must be a central part of the PDP process and any process that evaluates any future registry service offerings. If the ISPCP is not an explicit participant in the process, they must be able to participate by identifying appropriate expert analysts who can represent the operational interests of ISPs. On behalf of the ISPCP Constituency, Mark McFadden ISPCP Secretariat

1 0