FW: Template for CANN Constituency/Stakeholder Input on WSIS
PLEASE THE MEMO BELOW. THIS IS A REQUEST TO EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES AND OTHER ICANN STAKEHOLDER GROUPS TO EXPLAIN ITS UNIQUE ROLE WITHIN ICANN AND THE ISSUES IT IS INTERESTED UNDER ICANN'S GOVERNANCE. IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE, I PROPOSE TO WRITE A FIRST DRAFT OF THE ANSWERS AND SEND THAT TO THE RC FOR COMMENT. THIS IS NOT A FORMAL POSITION, SO CONSENSUS CAN BE REACHED WITHOUT REQUIRING A BOARDROOMS VOTE (ESPECIALLY SINCE THE SWISS GROUP WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR RESPONSE IN THE NEXT WEEK). -----Original Message----- From: ICANN At-Large [mailto:michel@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:56 AM To: WSISWPG@icann.org; pwilson@apnic.net; Marie.Zitkova@SITA.aero; mueller@syr.edu; jisuk@snu.ac.kr; ca@rits.org.br; Marc Schneiders; jse@adamspat.com; metalitz@iipa.com; steve@shinkuro.com; junsec@wide.ad.jp Subject: Template for CANN Constituency/Stakeholder Input on WSIS TO: - ASO/NRO - ccNSO - Commercial & Business Constituency - gTLD Registries Constituency - Internet Service & Connection Providers Constituency - Non-Commercial Constituency - Registrars Constituency - Intellectual Property Constituency - ALAC - SSAC - RSSAC FROM: WSIS Workshop Planning Group* <WSISWPG@icann.org> SUBJECT: Template for CANN Constituency/Stakeholder Input on WSIS At the WSIS Workshop in Kuala Lumpur (<http://www.icann.org/meetings/kualalumpur/icann-wsis-workshop-01jul04. htm> ), ICANN constituencies/stakeholder groups were invited to complete the template included below and return it to the WSIS Workshop Planning Group*. The Planning Group would greatly appreciate receiving a completed template from your group by 13 August 2004. Please email it to WSISWPG@icann.org. As discussed at the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) Workshop in Kuala Lumpur, the template is being used to gather input from the ICANN community. It is an initial step towards developing a bottom-up consensus to guide positions on Internet Governance, and to strengthen ICANN stakeholder awareness of WSIS and WSIS participants' understanding of ICANN. Submissions will be used to develop a statement with key themes about ICANN and Internet Governance, which can be used as input and guidance for the ICANN community and as a resource in working with other entities via the WSIS process. The statement will be circulated for endorsement and consideration by ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (as appropriate) and will be presented at the next WSIS Workshop at the Cape town ICANN meeting in December 2004. Thank you for your help with this effort. Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. The WSIS Workshop Planning Group <WSISWPG@icann.org>: Vittorio Bertola, At-Large Advisory Committee Izumi Aizu, At-Large Advisory Committee Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency David Fares, BusinessConstituency/USCIB Tony Holmes, Internet Service & Connectivity Providers Elana Broitman, Registrars Jeff Neuman, Registries Peter Dengate Thrush, InternetNZ Theresa Swinehart, ICANN Denise Michel, ICANN ---------------------------------------------- TEMPLATE FOR ICANN CONSTITUENCY/STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON WSIS (*Please email to <WSISWPG@icann.org> by 13 August 2004) 1. Name of Constituency/Stakeholder Group; description of group; contact information. 2. Role group plays regarding the Internet's system of unique identifiers and its stable and secure operation (what do you do?). 3. Explain how ICANN's activities/responsibilities effect what you do. 4. Explain why and how your group's members participate in ICANN (and give examples of some of the priority ICANN issues/activities in which your group's members are involved). 5. Activities outside of ICANN: Describe the Internet-related issues/activities addressed by (or affecting) your group's members that are outside of ICANN's mandate? What are some of the other international and national fora in which your group's members are involved? 6. Internet governance: Identify the other international or regional organizations your group's members work with, if any, on Internet governance discussions/issues [eg. ITU, WIPO, OECD, CITEL, APEC-TEL, IETF, etc.]. Explain how your group members have participated in WSIS.
PIR just sent out the below announcement... I must object, there is no registrant data in the "Info" command right now, but to remove Domain Status and Domain Expiration Date seems rather absurd. The command is already thin as is. To limit the command to only show Registrar will adversely effect not just our registrar but others as well. How can a Registry declare they are going to go from complaint with the EPP 1.0 RFC to non-compliance. Jay Westerdal Name Intelligence, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------- PER is also taking measures to limit potential data-mining through use of the "DomainInfo" EPP Command effective 6 November 2004 The .ORG OT&E environment will be available on 28 September 2004 for the 6 November 2004 release (to include the three major software upgrades noted above). For more information on the DomainInfo EPP command, please read below. "DomainInfo" EPP Command Effective 6 November 2004, any DomainInfo EPP Command request for domains not under sponsorship by the requestor will receive a 'thin' reply with the following domain name information: A) Domain Name B) Sponsoring Registrar Any DomainInfo EPP Command request for domain names where the requestor is the sponsoring registrar or for requests on domain names that present a valid authorization info code will receive the existing 'thick' reply. ----------------------------------------------------
Oki all, I've only given this a little bit of thought. If PIR is tending towards a PII-aware policy w.r.t. data protection, then in principle I'm in favor. As Jay points out, "there is no registrant data in the "Info" command", so the PII-aware policy possibility is not credible. That leaves Registry-business-aware policy as the next likely possibility. I'm concerned that any registry force any delta on client-side provisioning application, and on business logic with insufficient prior notice, and of course, conformance to contract. Particularly since this is a cost shift, and the registry business ROI is apparently not shared. In reply to Bruce's note, I think "competing registrars" is the better description than "the general public" for the scope of the information disclosure (current), and one, or two registrars in the case of a transfer, is the scope of the information disclosure (proposed). This isn't "WHOIS REDOUX", this is EPP 1.0. We (the protocol authors) intended that <info> "retrieve detailed information associated with a domain object" to distinguish it from <check>, and that purpose survived into rfc3731, Sec. 3.1. Now it is true that the minOccurs value for everything in an <info> response element is 0, but that doesn't mean that returning 0 is "compliant" with EPP (Bruce used the negative sense). In a perfect world I wouldn't want provisioning policy to know about, much less care about, publication policies, whether via dns, whois or bulk xfr. So I wouldn't want to tie this too tightly to whatever the ZooIs menagerie ends up with. In the same, or a similarly perfect world, I wouldn't want the registry to have the only complete view of the temporal properties of registrations, when a registry advertizes its brand as being "durable", I'd sort of like to know that its not all spammers on 1 year de minimus registrations. I agree with Mike, that prepopulating the gaining registrar's database without forcing the registrant to re-type all of his/her/it contact data is a win, and to look at just that issue narrowly, forcing customers to "touch keyboard" is a restraint on transfers, just as forcing customers to touch paper has been a restraint on registration in the ccTLDs that do force registrants and/or registrars to do business using a typewriter and not a keyboard. Maybe if PIR reduced the price by a dollar. Their registry-business-aware policy and my registrar-business-aware policy might then be a win-win. Eric USAWebhost/wampumpeag
participants (3)
-
Elana Broitman -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Jay Westerdal