ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[dow3tf] Re: Revised IPC Proposal re WhoIS Data Accuracy

  • Subject: [dow3tf] Re: Revised IPC Proposal re WhoIS Data Accuracy
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:05:35 -0400
  • Cc: dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <s17791a3.057@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <s17791a3.057@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)

Hash: SHA1

On 21/10/2004 10:38 AM Brian Darville noted that;
| As promised, I set forth below the feedback I have received from the
IPC regarding Whois data accuracy.  This revised draft is similar to the
first IPC draft.  It includes the mandatory language discussed
yesterday, but also includes some of the provisions that the Registrars
had deleted from the prior draft.  The IPC feels strongly that the WDRPS
should not be the only means by which a complaint can be brought to the
Registrar's attention.  Please note the new proposal that there be a
direct link to the WDRPS in all Whois output along with a notice as set
forth in point I. (C) below.  It also includes the cost reimbursement
provision for the fee service of verifying data accuracy on an expedited
basis, which I know the Registrars oppose.
| Ross, please provide the Registrars' comments to the list and everyone
else at your convenience.

I think you've summarized them quite well above. Since the inception of
this task force, we've gone back and forth looking for points of
compromise with the IPC only have them ignored or seen the ball move in
a completely different direction at the last minute (i.e. today's
addition "...that there be a direct link to the WDRPS in the Whois".)

I'd hoped that we'd moved beyond trying to talk about the points that we
don't disagree on and started looking for points that we do agree on.
Your message makes it abundantly, and disappointingly, clear that this
is not the case.

I'll reiterate my objections to your demands:

- - they are fundamentally unimplementable
- - the scope of the proposed changes to the responsibilities and rights
of registrants and registrars conflict with the facts at hand. i.e. data
accuracy is increasing under the existing policy, there is no evidence
to support your implied contention that sweeping change is mandatory or
desirable beyond the interests of your clients.
- - they inappropriately limit the scope of business model diversity of
registrar interests.
- - they inappropriately limit registrar capability to manage their
customer relationships in a proactive manner.
- - the new liabilities that would be incurred by registrars are unacceptable.

I'd be happy to expand on any of these points, but note that none of
them are new and I'd simply be repeating objections that I've already

- --

~ -rwr

~ "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, ~ every utensil, every article designed for use, of each ~ and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." ~ - Robert Collier

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)


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