ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[registrars] Registrar Constituency position and representatives comments on Preliminary Whois Report

  • To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [registrars] Registrar Constituency position and representatives comments on Preliminary Whois Report
  • From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:08:04 -0500
  • Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207)

Glen/Maria -

Please accept the following statement from the registrar constituency and its representatives to this TF. Section 1) was adopted by a majority vote of the constituency in January, 2006 and formally discussed, reinforced and evolved at each meeting of the constituency since (New Zealand, Morocco, Miami and Sao Paolo). This is in addition to ongoing dialogue about the work of the TF and the constituency position on the registrar constituency mailing list. The commentary included is provided in support of this formal position and includes feedback and commentary from various constituency participants.

1) Formal Position of the Registrar Constituency (ratified)
(i) The GNSO Registrar Constituency continues to support the Operation Point of Contact proposal discussed in the preliminary task force report.

2) Formal Feedback of the Constituency on the TF process, proposals and report (i) The OPOC proposal represents a variety of compromises between a number of potentially competing interests and strikes a balance between the requirements of network operators, business interests, trademark and intellectual property holders and registration interests. (ii) We urge the task force to complete its work prior to the upcoming meetings in Lisbon, Portugal and to focus on its consideration of access to data to ensure that the proposed policies can be properly implemented by users and providers; specifically, network providers, law enforcement interests, registration interests and those seeking to protect their intellectual property rights. (iii) Without due consideration of access to data, including the important questions of "Who?" and "On what terms?" the task force cannot consider their work adequate or complete.

3) Commentary
Unlike the last minute Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency proposals ("A Pragmatic Approach" and "Special Circumstances" proposals respectively) the Operational Point of Contact proposal does not advocate the irresponsible discontinuation of any aspect of the Whois service. Abolishing aspects of the service, or replacing it entirely, will undermine the stability and security of the internet's domain name system. Neither of these proposals are technically, socially or economically practical and both only serve the narrowest of interests within the business community.

Despite the mischaracterizations that came with the handwringing and scare tactics of the IPC, BCUC and ISPC, the Operational Point of Contact proposal provides for very small improvement to the Whois system without fundamentally altering its structure or operation. This iterative improvement allows registrants a modicum of privacy without affecting *in any way* the amount of data that is available for legitimate investigative purposes. This stands in stark contrast to the position of the intellectual property lobby, in the guise of the IPC, ISPC and BCUC, which proposes to replace the entire existing whois system with a centrally administered registration database operated by an unaccountable entity according to policies specifically designed to circumvent national law on a global scale.

The policy development process is necessarily participative, consultative and consensus driven. It is also prone to abuse and gaming, as is evidenced by the tactics of those participants who have turned their back on the current set of compromises by tabling their own private proposals - proposals which may or may not even have the endorsement of the interests they purport to represent. Reaction to this type of disingenuous participation will always be swift and predictable. In this case, compromises were fractured, perhaps irrevocably, as additional proposals were crafted as a defensive measure against the abandonment of the set of agreeements that the task force participants had been working with. This type of bad faith participation undermines the foundation and integrity of the GNSO's processes and structure. It may warrant specific examination during ICANN's Board review of the GNSO. The GNSO cannot be allowed continue to function in a manner that permits narrow constituencies to push their own self-interested agenda at the expense of all other stakeholders, especially given the duplicity and overlap of the composition of the intellectual property, internet service provider and business users constituencies. Large business interests must be consolidated into one constituency and arrangements made to allow unrepresented interests to participate in the work of the GNSO.

Finally, the importance of defining which parties shall continue to have access to Whois data pursuant to any policies adopted by ICANN cannot be forgotten. All parties with a legitimate need for access to registration data must continue to have access to this data. Attention must be paid to facilitate the needs of registration (registrants, registrars and registries) and law enforcement interests and the means by which they access the data they require.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>