Re: [dow3tf] TF3

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/4/2004 11:06 AM sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx noted that:

> Ross:
>
> The attached are draft comments I gave to Brian just two days ago,  but I
> was awaiting additional comments from other BC colleagues.  I did receive
> some additional feedback yesterday, which is incorporated in the attached.
>
>   Actually, what I tried to do was to keep as many of your suggested
> revisions as possible and attempt to create a middle ground where we can
> move forward.   Many of the changes are designed to reassure that the TF
> does not require ICANN to mandate any particular steps, but simply to
> consider various options.
>
> One important point that I have not had time to add, but which should be
> included, is the costs considerations of any particular best practice in
> the WHOIS space.

Thank you Sarah - transparency to these proceedings is extremely 
important and even with the best of intentions, can be hard to come 
by. I appreciate seeing this earlier draft as it really helps me 
understand the context of the subsequent revisions and drafts.

I believe that we can achieve the compromise you seek. In fact, let me 
 be explicit about it. The registrar position is quite simple and 
allows us to move forward with positive results for everyone.

1. There are a lot of effective, but voluntary, programs (ie - the 
Whois Data Problem Report system - http://wdprs.internic.net) in place 
today that improve the accuracy of the whois. These need to be made 
mandatory.

2. Registrars and registrants that don't abide by the terms of their 
contracts need be dealt with by ICANN and/or the registry operators 
(and/or registrars where registrants are concerned) as appropriate. To 
make this more possible, ICANN and the registry operators need to 
developed graduated sanctions and beef up their enforcement/compliance 
efforts.

Beyond this, requirements to adopt specific business processes, submit 
to disclosures of non-compliance or shift the burden of liability from 
registrants to registrars is completely inappropriate. Registrars will 
not accept any recommendations of this kind - not only are the 
legalities of such an imposition questionable, but we must consider 
the impact that they would have on the competitive environment. For 
instance, forcing a registrar to adopt automated processes when their 
entire operation is based on manual processes would probably have the 
effect of killing that particular registrar. Forcing a wholly 
automated registrar to adopt manual processes would have a similar 
effect. If ICANN is serious about promoting a competitive environment, 
then it must continue to provide a foundation for that competition.

I have included a revision to Brian's last draft that details what I 
believe creates the basis for this type of a compromise (very similar 
to the edits that your earlier draft includes with commentary peppered 
throughout that underlines the motivation for the changes requested 
from my perspective...)

To your last point, understanding cost implications should be dealt 
with prior to moving forward with our recommendations. As I understand 
it, these should have been included with the position statements of 
the constituencies, but given the lack of uniformity in the responses, 
I'm not sure that we can expect it. I suppose at this point that 
noting that there will be costs are about as good as we can do unless 
there are specific suggestions that would help us be more specific...

--


                       -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

Attachment: TF3-Best Practices3-rev.doc
Description: MS-Word document