Re: [dow3tf] Summary of current impasse
I have no changes to the attached, but would note for the group that the
Senate passed last night, S. 3021, a large IP bill, which contains in
Section 511, criminal provisions against the use of false WHOIS
information. The bill has not yet passed the House, but there is still
time for it to do so.
Sarah
(See attached file: S. 3021.pdf)
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Barbara Roseman"
<roseman@xxxxxxxx To: dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
g> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [dow3tf] Summary of current impasse
owner-dow3tf@gnso
.icann.org
11/22/2004 10:39
AM
Dear Task Force 3 members,
Can you please review the following summary of our current impasse and let
me know if you think there are mis-statements or mis-representations. If
there are things you would like to qualify, please notify me. I will need
your comments by Tuesday evening, California time, and on Wednesday morning
I will forward my note to the Council.
This is intended to give the GNSO Council a sense of what the core
disagreements are that are preventing agreement and consensus.
Thank you,
-Barb
--------
Whois Task Force 3 was initially tasked with exploring "mechanisms to
improve the quality of contact data that must be collected at the time of
registration."
In addition to researching possible means of introducing data verification
into the registration process, the Task Force was also asked to "determine
what verification mechanisms 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
for more timely responses for misuse of domain names associated with
deliberately false information." It is this last milestone that has taken
most of the attention of the Task Force, and where the greatest degree of
separation between parities exists.
The key issues here have been articulated as concerning two points:
1) Cost-benefit discussions
The basic disagreement in the Task Force has to do with the
relative cost
and benefit of taking certain actions for ensuring accuracy in the Whois
db. The Registrar's Constituency has made it clear that they will not
support the cost of new requirements or services that will require adding
resources if there is no relative benefit to them. Benefit can be defined
in a number of ways, but in this case the Registrars hold that the Whois
data reminder policy, and the WDPRS are sufficient services for identifying
and managing patently or potentially false registrations, and that adding
additional verification requirements doesn't improve their service as
Registrars, and doesn't benefit their business.
Conversely, the IP Constituency, with support from the
Business and ISP
Constituencies would like to see expedited verification services, given
that verification of data at the time of registration seems to be currently
unfeasible. They see benefit in being able to readily verify the ownership
of a domain, or to verify that the information is inaccurate, and therefore
have the domain put on hold. Both actions of verification (proof of
ownership or proof of falsity) benefit these users by enabling them to
effectively deal with "bad actors" who may be hurting their business.
The Registrars would consider expedited verification services,
but only if
they are able to recover the costs of such a service from those requesting
it. Their argument is that since they are not the beneficiaries of
increased accuracy, they shouldn't have to bear the cost.
2) A related question that has emerged from the cost-benefit issue is what
is the purpose of increasing accuracy in the Whois database?
If the key purpose, as discussed in the Description of Work,
is to allow
for greater tracking of "bad actors" associated with providing false or
inaccurate data, then this would indicate a relatively small number of
investigations (compared to the extensive number of domain registrations),
and the concentration of resources in a manner that would support expedited
research of problem reports, and more rapid, conclusive penalties for
providing false data.
If the concern is to have the overall database be as accurate
as possible,
this would indicate a more flexible, registrant-oriented approach that
allows ample time for verifying data, such as the annual Whois data
reminder policy. Keeping the Whois db as up to date as possible overall
also means allowing for the inevitable inaccuracies that occur in any
registration database, such as when people move or change phone numbers or
email addresses, and take their time in updating non-urgent accounts.
Choosing which is the higher priority, tracking "bad actors"
or
maintaining overall accuracy will direct the ongoing discussion of
cost-benefit ratios, and who should assume the costs and who gains the most
benefit.
Attachment:
S. 3021.pdf |