ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[dow3tf]


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

Re: [dow3tf] Report Challenges

  • To: Brian Darville <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow3tf] Report Challenges
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:43:26 -0500
  • Cc: dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <s06a8f8e.054@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <s06a8f8e.054@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5+ (Windows/20040215)

On 3/31/2004 9:29 AM Brian Darville noted that:
All:

I would recommend that we consider the following:

1) Report what we have done and the limited responses as detailed in the Interim Report;

Fair enough.


2) Develop a best practices document based on what we do know, qualifying the document on the ground that we received little substantive responses on the issue. Let's see if there are at least a few Best Practices that we can agree on at this time.

From the TOR...
" - create a best practices document for improving data verification based on the information collected that can be applied on a global basis"


I would be reticent to create a best practices document based on the opinions of the task force when we do not have sufficient information to even determine whether or not best practices actually exist. That being said, I believe that we are in a position to make recommendations to ICANN that outline further improvements to their existing educational, outreach and compliance programs to ensure appropriate awareness and support of existing contractual requirements.


3) Report the various constituency positions.

Are we expecting more than three constituencies to submit statements? Also note that I am not confident that the existing submissions fulfill the requirements set forth in the bylaws.



4) Recommend that ICANN review the contracts to determine what if any changes are required. (Task 4)

5) Identify at least few verification mechanisms that can be used cost effectively to combat the deliberate provision of false information, and determine whether additional mechanisms are necessary to provide traceability of registrants, or provide more timely responses for misuse of domain names associated with deliberately false information (Task 5)

We currently have the Whois Data Reminder Policy, ICANN Whois data problem reporting tool. Is there anything else that we are aware of?



Circulate a draft on these points and then determine whether or not we have a supermajority position.

Ross, can you circulate a draft by Friday?

Yes - if we can come to closure on the points I raise above and get further feedback regarding the data verification mechanisms above. The suggeste contractual changes will be relatively straightforward.



--


-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



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