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@tucows.com> Reply-To: rc-excom@googlegroups.com Organization: Tucows Inc. To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> CC: 'gnso-whois-wg' <gnso-whois-wg@icann.org>, rc-excom@googlegroups.com References: <469F0B7D.9020700@gnso.icann.org> <001201c7c9f8$a390b2b0$e601a8c0@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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rc-excom-unsubscribe@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