ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow2tf] Topics for Mondays call

  • To: "'Steve Metalitz'" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "'Tom Keller'" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics for Mondays call
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:58:18 -0500
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <ED4EC3C54C514942B84B686CDEC7FC05BA9B9F@smsvr2.local.iipa.com>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation. A Registrant being able to maintain
anonymity and a user licensing use of a domain name from a Registrant are
fundamentally different, at least in my view. The latter has been going on
more or less for years via some Hosting companies that basically do the same

I don't believe the issue of Registrants licensing domain names is within
the scope of this task force.


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:26 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Steve Metalitz; Tom Keller; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics for Mondays call


One of the three questions the Task Force has been asked to address is:

Should domain name holders be allowed to remove certain parts of the
required contact information from anonymous (public) access, and if so, what
data elements can be withdrawn from public access, by which registrants, and
what contractual changes (if any) are required to enable this? Should
registrars be required to notify domain name holders when the withheld data
is released to third parties? 

We have also been assigned the following task:

Document existing methods by which registrants can maintain anonymity and
assess their adequacy.

Would you agree that the proposal I have made is in-scope for these
questions and this task?  

I know from your previous posts that you have fundamental problems with what
the Task Force has been asked to do.  So do some of the other participants
in the Task Force.  But unless and until our assignment is changed, I believ
ewe should try to carry out our assignment.  

Steve Metalitz 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:54 AM
To: 'Steve Metalitz'; 'Tom Keller'; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics for Mondays call


I think ICANN has no business delving into any of the issues you raise below
regarding Proxy services. The Proxy IS the registrant and the RAA already
makes it clear they take on all of the obligations of a registrant. Neither
ICANN's mission nor their MoU permits them to delve into issues regarding
third party contacts between registrants and others who they may allow to
use their domain names. And I doubt highly if ICANN would have any desire,
or the resources, to do that anyway.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Steve Metalitz
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:58 AM
To: Tom Keller; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics for Mondays call

In response to Jordyn's call for specific proposals to be discussed on

1.  ICANN should: 
(a) incorporate compliance with the notification and consent requirement
(R.A.A. Secs., as part of its overall plan to improve
registrar compliance with the RAA.  (See MOU Amendment II.C.14.d). 
(b) issue an advisory reminding registrars of the importance of compliance
with this contractual requirement, even registrars operating primarily in
countries in which local law apparently does not require registrant consent
to be obtained.
(c)  encourage development of best practices that will improve the
effectiveness of giving notice to, and obtaining consent from, domain name
registrants with regard to uses of registrant contact data, such as by
requesting that GNSO commence a policy development process (or other
procedure) with goal of developing such best practices.  

2.  ICANN should conduct further research on the use of "proxy registration
services" within the framework of Sec. of the RAA, including but not
limited to the following issues:
*	the rate of uptake of such services, and consumer response to them;
*	what steps are taken to ensure that the registrar collects (or has
immediate access to) accurate, complete and current contact information on
all registrants taking advantage of such services;
*	the circumstances under which contact information of the actual
registrant is disclosed pursuant to the RAA provision (i.e., the "evidence
of actionable harm" scenario);
*	how registrants are notified when the withheld data is released to
third parties;
*	scalability of such services.   
The results of such research should be reported to the GNSO Council by a
date certain so that consideration can be given to whether the contractual
provisions should be changed.  

Steve Metalitz 


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:37 AM
To: dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dow2tf] Topics for Mondays call


following Jordyns suggestion I would like to propose the following topics
for discussion on our next call.

1.) Icann whois regulation and local laws/regulations
2.) Tiered access model (Registrars/ALAC)

The reasons behind choosing these two topics is that the first one is a
basic contractual matter and a decision on it will have direct impact on the
further discussion and therefore should be dealed with it before we start
with anything else. The second proposed topic seems to be a possible
solution for a new whois service which has maximum support from the
constituencies. I would further like to suggest to split topic 2 into two
areas which should be discussed separately. 

a.) What data must be provided to access the tiers.
b.) What data must be provided in the tiers.




Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Brauerstrasse 48         		Tel. +49-721-91374-534
76135 Karlsruhe, Germany               	Fax  +49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                  	tom@xxxxxxxxxx      

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