RE: [registrars] WHOIS Area 3 terms of reference (accuracy)

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Tim,

> 
> 1. It states that the purpose of the task force is to develop 
> mechanisms to improve the quality of contact data collected 
> at the time of registration. I believe that should be 
> qualified by the cost effectiveness of any mechanism. It is 
> important that the cost/benefit aspect not be overlooked. We 
> are commercial enterprises engaged in competition for a 
> profit. This is as ICANN was directed by the DoC. To now 
> impose mechanisms that put some registrars at a cost 
> disadvantage over others (US vs. International) would not be 
> appropriate.

Yes - this will be considered in the task force.  It is part of the
policy development process for each constituency to make submissions on
the costs and feasibility of changes.

You raise a very good point regarding competition issues, and also a big
issue would be the cost impact if a registrar was required to purchase
address verification software for 200 countries etc (even if such
software exists).  This will need to form the basis of registrar
submissions.

However registrars cannot sit back and expect no change  - we should be
aiming to get the best result by making some low cost improvements that
make a tangible difference.


> 
> 2. It states that the task force should not consider 
> mechanisms for restricting the public display for some data 
> elements. The problem here is that if the Task Force dealing 
> with data collection should propose changes in the data 
> collected and displayed, the accuracy Task Force may end up 
> spend time on issues that will no longer be relevant. Seems 
> to me the data collection/display issue should be resolved 
> before this Task Force can really focus on its charter.
> 

That is a view held by the non-commercial constituency as well.  The
difficulty is that the ISP, business, and IP constituency have the
opposite view.  It appears they don't want any changes to the data
elements collected or displayed, but want them more accurate.

The only solution is to look at the issues together as part of a
continuous improvement process.

It is up to the registrar constituency to ensure that it resources the
efforts properly to ensure that we can keep the discussion on data
elements being reviewed at the same time.

Note that it is intended that the 3 working areas keep each other
informed of progress.  

Regards,
Bruce