RE: [registrars] Draft terms of reference for task force to review data collected and data displayed

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>In some cases this may require the provision of 
>searching facilities (e.g that can return more 
>than one record in response to a query)

Narrow it by removing the above. Providing additional search
capabilities is going to be a hotly debated topic that should probably
be in its own PDP.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:44 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Draft terms of reference for task force to review
data collected and data displayed


The attached draft was provided to the GNSO WHOIS Steering group today.

Any suggestions on improvements to the terms of reference should be
provided to our two representatives on this committee (Tom Keller and
Mark Jeftovic).

I would prefer to see the scope narrowed not enlarged - so that a result
is reasonably achievable in a reasonable timeframe.

Regards,
Bruce



Title: Review data collected and data displayed

Participants:
- 1 representative from each constituency
- ALAC liaison
- GAC liaison
- ccNSO liaison
- SECSAC liaison
- liaisons from other GNSO WHOIS task forces

Description of Task Force:
==========================

There are domain name holders that are concerned about their privacy,
both in terms of data that is collected and held about them, and also in
terms of what parts of that data is made available to other parties.
Extensive contact information can assist a registrar or network provider
to contact a domain name holder in the event of a technical problem or
in the event that a domain name may expire.  However a domain name
holder may be prepared to make a personal decision to accept a lower
standard of service (e.g take their own steps to be reminded of when a
domain expires) in return for greater privacy.   A domain name holder
may be prepared to provide extensive contact information to their domain
name provider, but would prefer to control what information is available
for public access.  For example a telephone customer may provide
detailed address information to a telephone service provider, but may
elect not to have this information displayed in a public whitepages
directory.  Note however that there is generally access to the complete
information to groups such as law enforcement and emergency services
personnel.   Another issue that is often raised is that there is limited
public understanding of the present contractual obligations.  Most
domain name holders are unaware that their information has been
displayed publically via the present port-43 and interactive web access
methods.


The purpose of this task force is to determine what contractual changes
(if any) are required to either allow domain name holders to limit the
amount of information that provide at the time of registration, or limit
the amount of information that is made accessible for anonymous (public)
access.

In-scope
========
The purpose of this section to clarify the issues should be considered
in proposing any policy changes.

The task force should consider not only changes to data collection and
display, but also to how registrants can be kept adequately informed of
what data is made publicly available, and what data may be made
available to other parties such as law enforcement and intellectual
property owners.

With respect to data collected, the task force should consider what is
the amount of data that should be collected assuming that the domain
name holder must be contactable.

The task force should examine what data is made publicly (anonymous)
available, and what choices a domain name holder may have with respect
to which data is publicly available.



Out-of-scope
============
To ensure that the task force remains narrowly focussed to ensure that
its goal is reasonably achievable and withina reasonable time frame, it
is necessary to be clear on what is not in scope for the task force.

The task force should not examine the mechanisms available for anonymous
publoic access of the data - this is the subject of a separate task
force.

The task force should not examine mechanisms for law enforcement access
to the data collected.  This is generally subject to existing local
laws, and maybe the subject of a future task force.

The task force should not study methods for fully anonymous registration
(ie that the domain name holder will never be contactable) - this will
be the subject of a separate task force.



Tasks/Milestones
================
- for further work