ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow1-2tf] TR : Proposal for tomorrow's TF call

  • To: <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] TR : Proposal for tomorrow's TF call
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:24:16 -0400
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I won't be able to participate in the teleconference today, 
so let me react to Maggie's proposal here:

In general, I see these three areas of work as going on in 

>> "gnso.icann" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 09/14/04 04:52AM >>>

>1)      Begin at the top of the chart and focus on implementation of
>conspicuous notice. 
>-provide some guidelines on what constitutes conspicuous notice.

This is acceptable.

>2)      Set out a specific procedure for resolving instances where a
>national law conflicts with contractual obligations of
>registries/registrars in reference to Whois data.
>-Providers to begin process by showing the actual provision of law
>contract that are deemed to be in conflict.
>-ICANN staff review.
>-What happens in event that staff disagrees that a conflict exists?
>-Timeframe for resolution.

Not acceptable. Not until we have a firm consensus that
tiered access will be the policy going forward. The development of
this procedure is likely to take as long as working out the details
of a tiered access policy. Therefore, the two should go on in 
parallel, or (preferably) number 3 should come first. 

Even if you don't agree with me there, you nbeed to strike
everything after the first sentence. Maggie has proposed a 
specific policy, but that goes well beyond what is needed now -
which is an agreement on an agenda.

>3)      I think working out the details of tiered access will be the
>most time consuming issue, and should be left to the end after the
>two less complex recommendations are resolved.

Unacceptable. This work should go on in parallel, or in 
fact be given first priority. 

Actually, the details of tiered access implementation will be 
determined by the companies, it is not GNSO's job to tell 
people how to do it. What we need to do is (as I have said
before) establish policy on it. We already know that it is 
feasible and indeed common. Now we have to decide:
a) is it consensus policy to tier access to whois data? 
b) which data elements will be tiered?
c) what identification/authentication method will be used?
Note that in order to decide these three things, there is
no need to settle the technical details or make a "system
change." we need to set policy first. I understand why
certain interests would like to delay this, but I trust that
others can see through these tactical moves. 


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