ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations

  • To: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
  • From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:37:01 -0500
  • Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcTo+n8hokwoJibvS3a3MyDLnv4zUQLCe9nw
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations

We agree with Tucows' position on this issue.  These proposals would add
a great deal of expense on registrars.  We do not think that the
potential "benefits" justify the costs associated with changing our
sales flows and adding additional requirements on our customers.
Shouldn't we respond in a similar fashion to our response to the Task
Force 3 proposals?






Jonathon L. Nevett


13200 Woodland Park Road

Herndon, Virginia 20171

(703) 668-4775



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:10 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois
tf 1/2 recommendations


Tim Ruiz wrote:


> Policy positions are not something we should attempt to fasttrack.

> deadline needs to be moved to something realistic, probably at least

> mid-February.


To that end, it would be useful if either Tom or Paul prepared a 

strawman statement that we could use as the basis for our position.


Tucows position is that these recommendations are over-reaching, 

unrealistic and inappropriate.


Some specific comments...


RE: 1. Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding availability

third-party access to personal data associated with domain names

actually be

presented to registrants during the registration process.  Linking to an

external web page is not sufficient.


It is inappropriate to view the registration exercise as a policy 

education process. It is a registration process and should be as simple,

straightforward and unburdened as possible for registrants to conclude. 

The current trend to "cram" all sorts of notices, and prescribe the 

method of notification, into the registration process interferes with 

the potential simplicity of this process.


Furthermore, presenting anything to the registrant during the 

registration process is an entirely new obligation that would require 

many registrars to completely re-establish their method of registration.

For wholesale registrars, this represents a highly onerous burden.


Lastly, this recommendation is highly unclear. What is a disclossure 

regarding availability? Availability of what? This should be defined.


This recommendation would be acceptable to Tucows in the following form 

(with the potential to include a reference to "availability" if 

agreeable clarification is forthcoming);


1. Registrar must disclose to potential registrants that personal data 

associated with their domain name will be provided to third parties in 

accordance with ICANN Whois policy.


RE: 2. Registrars must ensure that these disclosures are set aside from


provisions of the registration agreement if they are presented to

registrants together with that agreement.  Alternatively, registrars may

present data access disclosures separate from the registration


The wording of the notice provided by registrars should, to the extent

feasible, be uniform.


Prescribing the form and scope of my legal agreeements with my 

registrants is inappropriate and without precedent under current


Tucows position is that this entire clause be removed from the 



RE: 3. Registrars must obtain a separate acknowledgement from registrars


they have read and understand these disclosures.  This provision does


affect registrars' existing obligations to obtain registrant consent to


use of their contact information in the WHOIS system.


Presumably, this was intended to read "acknowledgement from Registrants 

that...", nonetheless requiring separate acknowledgement is an 

unworkable condition that cannot be practically implemented in the 

current environment. Today, a Registrar is required to bind a Registrant

to a series of obligations. It is a well known fact that customers do 

not read point-of-sale agreements. This is especially true of click-wrap

agreements. Ascertaining whether or not a Registrant has read and 

understands those obligations is beyond the scope of existing 

registration processes.


It is really only appropriate to obtain a Registrants agreement that 

their data will be included in the Whois and make this a condition of 

registration in a fashion similar to the other terms a Registrant must 

agree to prior to undertaking a registration.


Tucows position is that this recommendation be removed or alternatively,

be limited to requiring a Registrar to bind a registrant to agreeing to 

the disclosure of their data to third parties via the Whois service. 

(Note: I haven't reviewed the relevant agreements to determine whether 

or not this may already be a requirement, if it is, then this 

recommendation should be simply removed from the Task Force 



I'd be happy to clarify any of these points if there are further











Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross

Skydasher: A great way to start your day

My weblog: http://www.byte.org



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