Re: Fwd: Re: [dow3tf] TF3

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian -

As I mentioned on the call, this is not a fair characterization of the 
position that I have put forward. There are two elements that we are 
dealing with here:

1) Whether or not is appropriate for a task force to be making 
recommendations that presume a specific implementation. Clear precedent 
indicates it is not,

2) The substance of the policy recommendations themselves. The registrar 
constituency is demonstrably open to compromise on these issues, however 
the task force has not seen fit to move beyond recommending 
implementation specifics and deal with the substance of its work.

If we are to move towards closure, it must be on the basis of having 
dealt with policy recommendations of the task force.


On 5/19/2004 10:45 AM Brian Darville noted that:

> Bruce:
>
> Please take  a look at the attached Registrar comments.  The registrar constituency has taken the position that literally all of the substantive recommendations regarding WHOIS data accuracy are out of scope because they relate to implementation as opposed to policy.  Do you agree with this statement? If the registrar position is correct, it is doubtful that the Task Force can make any meaningful recommendations regarding WHOIS data accuracy issues and the preliminary and final reports will be largely general statements of little import.  In my view the registrar position is directly at odds with your recommendations in your May 19, 2004 email regarding how you see the various Task Forces progressing.
>
> Please let me know your view on this issue so that the Task Force can determine whether there is any basis for it to continue with its work in recommending best practices and mechanisms for further ascertaining those practices.  It would be helpful if I could get your views on this issue as soon as possible.
>
> I have copied Ross Rader, the Constituency Rep, so that he can articulate his views directly.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Brian Darville
> Oblon, Spivak
> (703) 412-6426
> bdarville@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > > > "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> 05/04/04 12:55PM >>>
>
> On 5/4/2004 11:06 AM sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx noted that:
>
>
> > Ross:
> >
> > The attached are draft comments I gave to Brian just two days ago,  but I
> > was awaiting additional comments from other BC colleagues.  I did receive
> > some additional feedback yesterday, which is incorporated in the attached.
> >
> >  Actually, what I tried to do was to keep as many of your suggested
> > revisions as possible and attempt to create a middle ground where we can
> > move forward.   Many of the changes are designed to reassure that the TF
> > does not require ICANN to mandate any particular steps, but simply to
> > consider various options.
> >
> > One important point that I have not had time to add, but which should be
> > included, is the costs considerations of any particular best practice in
> > the WHOIS space.
>
>
> Thank you Sarah - transparency to these proceedings is extremely 
> important and even with the best of intentions, can be hard to come 
> by. I appreciate seeing this earlier draft as it really helps me 
> understand the context of the subsequent revisions and drafts.
>
> I believe that we can achieve the compromise you seek. In fact, let me 
>   be explicit about it. The registrar position is quite simple and 
> allows us to move forward with positive results for everyone.
>
> 1. There are a lot of effective, but voluntary, programs (ie - the 
> Whois Data Problem Report system - http://wdprs.internic.net) in place 
> today that improve the accuracy of the whois. These need to be made 
> mandatory.
>
> 2. Registrars and registrants that don't abide by the terms of their 
> contracts need be dealt with by ICANN and/or the registry operators 
> (and/or registrars where registrants are concerned) as appropriate. To 
> make this more possible, ICANN and the registry operators need to 
> developed graduated sanctions and beef up their enforcement/compliance 
> efforts.
>
> Beyond this, requirements to adopt specific business processes, submit 
> to disclosures of non-compliance or shift the burden of liability from 
> registrants to registrars is completely inappropriate. Registrars will 
> not accept any recommendations of this kind - not only are the 
> legalities of such an imposition questionable, but we must consider 
> the impact that they would have on the competitive environment. For 
> instance, forcing a registrar to adopt automated processes when their 
> entire operation is based on manual processes would probably have the 
> effect of killing that particular registrar. Forcing a wholly 
> automated registrar to adopt manual processes would have a similar 
> effect. If ICANN is serious about promoting a competitive environment, 
> then it must continue to provide a foundation for that competition.
>
> I have included a revision to Brian's last draft that details what I 
> believe creates the basis for this type of a compromise (very similar 
> to the edits that your earlier draft includes with commentary peppered 
> throughout that underlines the motivation for the changes requested 
> from my perspective...)
>
> To your last point, understanding cost implications should be dealt 
> with prior to moving forward with our recommendations. As I understand 
> it, these should have been included with the position statements of 
> the constituencies, but given the lack of uniformity in the responses, 
> I'm not sure that we can expect it. I suppose at this point that 
> noting that there will be costs are about as good as we can do unless 
> there are specific suggestions that would help us be more specific...


--

                       -rwr








                "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                           All life is an experiment.
                            The more experiments you make the better."
                        - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org