ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow3tf] Summary of current impasse

  • To: Barbara Roseman <roseman@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow3tf] Summary of current impasse
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:34:39 -0500
  • Cc: dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Hash: SHA1


Thanks for putting this together. My comments focus specifically on this
draft - I'm not sure that its productive to provide commentary on all
drafts in circulation.. I'd ask that if you do modify this draft as the
result of comments received from the community that you circulate a
revision that includes tracked changes.

Re: Cost/Benefit:

"...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."

The Registrar position is slightly more nuanced than this. Definite and
quantified data is available that indicates that the current policy
(WDRP and WDPRS)is working and primarily so due to significant support
and investment from the registrar community. There is also reasonable
information to presume that the current policy could be improved (i.e.
reinforcing the WDPRS in a few key ways).

In light of this, the Constituency is unclear why these current systems
must be replaced. No compelling business case been presented that
justifies doing so. We are therefore reluctant to undertake making new
investments to support the new services that new policies would require.

In summary, we do not believe that the current system is broken and have
continuously provided hard data to back this claim up. Committing to a
radical overhaul of these policies at this time would be an
inappropriate course of action for the community to take.

Thanks again,

- -rwr

On 22/11/2004 10:39 AM Barbara Roseman noted that; | 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. | |

- --

~ -rwr

Skydasher: A great way to start your day

My contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
My weblog: http://www.byte.org/

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


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