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: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:54:20 -0400
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcQoaX/4dUYl5GurSpe19gyJ9QWicgAAZwPw
  • Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Topics for Mondays call

Sorry to have  missed yesterday.  I can support Thomas Keller's and Steve Metalitz's  proposals for topics to discuss on Monday the below. I offer one modification to how Thomas seems to be seeing the discussion. From the BC perspective, we want all data collected, but we are interested in discussing differentiated access to different data elements.

So, I would offer a slightly different list of items on this topic than Thomas offered.

a) what data elements are provided in the database
b) what data elements are displayed at "tier one"- public access and what at "tier two"-access after some additional inforation is provided by the requestor
c) what information is required by the requestor before giving access?
d) are there only two tiers of data? or three? If so, what falls into different tiers and why?
e) is there a cost to support the "tiered" access to offset the additional cost to the registrars? If so, how is that collected? Is it a subscription service that allows authentication of the requestor? or a fee per request? Does law enforcement pay for access? 

I would like to also suggest that it is important to discuss tiered access with some amount of technical understanding of what it takes to make such changes. We could perhaps start this discussion conceptually, but quickly need to have a CRISP briefing. And, it isn't enough that one or two people understand CRISP in the TFs. I do highly recommend that we work toward a cross TF briefing on that topic and others that turn out to be relevant from this stage of our work together.

Marilyn S. Cade
AT&T Law & Government Affairs
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
Washington, DC 20036

281-664-9731 e-fax
202-360-1196 c

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:58 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 >>>